[Freedombox-discuss] Establishing Communication between Freedomboxes
On 07/07/2011 11:39 AM, Ted Smith wrote:
> As such, I don't see why a fully distributed system, where each node
> detects spam and does not relay it, wouldn't suffice in any case. There
> is no reason for the power of deciding which messages are malicious and
> which aren't to be concentrated in one central place -- it can be
> returned to its source, the people, with no ill effect.
>
> This is, of course, a purely effects-centric argument -- personally, as
> someone who sometimes falls outside of the community norms, I don't want
> to see anyone or anything empowered to "enforce" said norms more than
> they already are. As Richard Stallman says, freedom is the most
> important feature, and a centralized system can be rejected just because
> it is centralized. I'd gladly pay for my freedom in a few unwanted
> messages that consume 30 seconds of my daily time.
As I said to dkg's point:
>> When in doubt, we should avoid infrastructure with this kind of
>> centralized leverage. too much centralized power already exists in the
>> non-freedombox world. Let's not replicate those mistakes.
>
>Agreed, but let's also not overlook the problems solved by a centralized
>architecture as we move away from that centralization. I would love to
>hear some more about how we can publish identity and machine contact
>information through either the keyservers or dht, and particularly about
>how to protect such contact routes from abuse by SPAMers and other forms
>of contact abuse.
If you feel that SPAM and other forms of contact abuse are solved
problems, that's great and I would love to hear about how we can
implement those solutions on the FreedomBox. If the Dynamic DNS based
public directory I proposed is particularly troubling to you, perhaps we
could focus on how that is different from DNS itself, the gpg
keyservers, or even the Debian mirror system. If there are problematic
differences, maybe we can mitigate them technically, perhaps by
implementing signed updates like the keyservers, or at least use the
discussion to move towards a preferable architecture.
-Ian
Reply to: