The Guardian writes about Freenet
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 6:28PM A few weeks ago I spoke to Andy Beckett of The Guardian in the UK, he was writing an article about "the darknet", and wanted to talk to me about Freenet. I was quite pleased about this because when I'm in the UK the Guardian is by far my favorite newspaper.
We had a good conversation, I talked about the original motivation behind Freenet (read about it here), our challenges, like balancing the very theoretical issues we face with the need to write software that non-techies can use, and other things.
At one point he mentioned the dangers of "bad" uses of Freenet, but he did so in a very coy almost apologetic way. I immediately assumed he was thinking of child pornography, and made it pretty clear that I was more than happy to discuss that, indeed of the hundreds of conversations I've had with journalists about Freenet over the past 10 years, I can't think of one where I didn't discuss the CP issue!
I told him what I tell everyone, which is that like most people I wish CP didn't exist, but there are many ways to get it other than Freenet, and I don't think people should be denied the freedom to communicate just because a small minority might use it for something we don't agree with.
My impression at the time was that he really wanted to get off the subject, which I thought was a bit surprising since journalists love controversy, and there are few things as controversial as child porn.
Anyway, Google Alerts just told me that the article has appeared on the Guardian's website (skip to the bottom for the link).
Overall I think it was quite a good article, I was particularly excited to read:
Installing the software takes barely a couple of minutes and requires minimal computer skills
I think Andy may be the first mainstream journalist in the history of Freenet to actually install and use the software before writing about it!
I was a little surprised that it did focus almost exclusively on the negatives implications of an absolutist "free communication" philosophy. For example the subtitle is:
In the 'deep web', Freenet software allows users complete anonymity as they share viruses, criminal contacts and child pornography
I was neither surprised nor annoyed that a journalist would want to talk about computer viruses, criminals, and child porn, after all - controversy attracts clicks and lets face it, our newspapers need all the help they can get attracting revenue these days. Further, it is perfectly legitimate to talk about the fact that freedom of communication implies freedom for people to communicate data and ideas we don't like.
I was a little surprised, however, that Andy didn't seem terribly interested in discussing these issues when we spoke by phone - even though I made it very clear that I was happy to and I even tried to steer the conversation in that direction.
Regardless of this slight surprise, I haven't yet noticed any major errors in it, at least no errors on Andy's part (although the [sic] after the American spelling of "pedophile" is not exactly in the spirit of cross-Atlantic harmony). I am curious about how he knew I was a pasty teenager (although he was quite right)! Not so much now that I've been living in Texas for a few years.
I did find this interesting though:
According to the police, for criminal users of services such as Freenet, the end is coming anyway. The PCeU spokesman says, "The anonymity things, there are ways to get round them, and we do get round them.
If, by "the anonymity things" they are referring to stuff like simple referrers, or even just using your browser in "incognito" mode, then they are correct. But if they are referring to technologies like Freenet and Tor - then either they are mistaken, lying, or they know something about Freenet and Tor that neither I, nor anyone I've ever met or heard from, has discovered. This is extremely unlikely, I know many of the best security people in the world, and none of them work for the British police.
This isn't to say that identifying a user of software like Freenet or Tor is impossible, but it would require either an impractical expenditure of resources (bugging computers, etc), or for the user to do something like accidentally disclosing their identity on Freenet. We can guard against many things, but we can't guard against stupidity :-)
Anyway, as I said its a pretty good article, and despite its focus on the negative - it will hopefully bring some new users to Freenet. Read it here: The dark side of the internet
Reader Comments (68)
Hi Ian,
I too enjoyed the read, thought it was facinating and a great insight. Just so you know, most journalists don't pick/write their titles. Articles in the main get shifted to a sub-editor who writes headlines for them. As you mention, invariably they focus on sensationalism which in this case is child porn to attract the headlines.
If the headline was written by a sub-editor, Andy probably isnt overly impressed with it either as the article isn't really about that at all. However most of us are intelligent to realise that anyway and instead get some real insight into thsi topic. Nice work.
Dan, yes I'm aware that he probably didn't write the subtitle, although I do think the article's focus was still negative. As I said though, I'm really not complaining about it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the Guardian article misleadingly mix up a whole load of different phenomena? My impression of the "deep web" is that it's largely defunct sites or sites that no one is linking to, of little interest to most users, rather than a hidden zone of the internet controlled by Russian criminal gangs, and "murky address spaces" are much more technical and less sinister than the writer makes them sound. It also gives a lot of credibility to the co-founder of Kosmix who obviously has an interest in making it sound like there is a whole load of useful and/or illegal content out there that Google is missing.
Hi Ian,
I really enjoyed reading both the Guardian article and your blog post; naive as it sounds, I had no prior knowledge of any of the subject matter and I found it fascinating. Freenet as a concept is mindblowing and I look forward to finding out more about it and similar projects.
All the best.
Morning Ian,
"According to the police, for criminal users of services such as Freenet, the end is coming anyway. The PCeU spokesman says, "The anonymity things, there are ways to get round them, and we do get round them."
Seems like a very reasonable lie to tell, if you want to scare people into compliance. Sort of reminds me of the old TV Licence adverts - "Billy McNed in Apartment 13/3 at 15 Red Road is using Freenet. And he's downloading Photoshop."
Hi Ian
I too enjoyed the article and your response. As you say despite its rather negative tone it is an excellent advertisement for Freenet - expect a massive spike in people downloading it!
J
The article was typically flawed:
a) The vast majority of "the dark net" - by every serious estimate - is entirely unremarkable: subscription content (mostly scholarly), social networking profiles, 'dead' sites, content internal to organisations like large companies, etc. etc. etc. With this context, the whole tone of the article becomes somewhat vulgar.
b) There is no real evidence that there is information relevant to your search (i.e. not 'dead', useless stuff) which doesn't show up on Google.
c) The assertion: "internet searches are searching only 0.03% … of the [total web] pages available" is ridiculous, unless you are counting utterly irrelevant and useless material as part of the deep web - which is not what the article implies
d) The potential for the internet in countering repression and tyranny is mostly overlooked
e) The use of the internet in criminal enterprises is hugely exaggerated
f) The increasing corporate control and restriction of the internet for the profit of small groups of shareholders is almost completely ignored
I enjoyed reading the Guardian article (although I agree it dwelt on the negative aspects - predictably), but how refreshing to also read Ian's measured response and some cogent, polite posts on this site! I normally steer clear of the comment sections on webpages due to them being the domain of the weird, the bigoted and the ignorant.
Best wishes.
They forget that freedom means the freedom to do bad as well as good. So many years of nanny state and it's become second nature even to guardian journalists. Freedom is too precious to lose & once lost cannot easily be returned. Fight the power!
Enjoyed the article, and your response, thought it was well balanced overall. And I've already downloaded your software as a result. Now to explore....
Great stuff, really interesting article and response. And a pleasant lack of vitriol in the comments for once
Hi Ian,
I too found the article very interesting and enlightening to read, and within a couple of clicks am on board. However, within another couple of clicks I noticed that Google was perhaps your largest sponsor with two $18,000 donations? (excuse me if I'm wrong) - whilst I applaud Google for this I only draw attention to it due to the fact that the journalist didn't mention it at all in the article. Surely he was aware of it?.
When considering the context of the journalists premise and particularly the conclusion, I find the reporting disingenuous at best.
I agree with you with regard to the negative tone of the article, but couldn't agree more than with James and hope that you enjoy the spike in traffic and adoption - well deserved and all the best.
M
It is annoying to see that the currrent "UK-lib" release is getting more and more towards the "smash'em terrorists" attitude. But I suppose that when you have to market Tony "cut'n'paste" Blair as the EU president and the sending of some more 40k walking targets into Afghanistan, you are left with little choice. What you need is to keep people scared.
On the other hand, this focus on "negative" stuff probably makes for a much better marketing... so let's get the good things out of it.
Guardian article was interesting, as is yours and the comments. I don't bother much with anonymity personally, but do I think that it is essential that we always have some means of being anonymous when we want to. We cannot always trust our leaders, or the police for that matter, to preserve what most of us consider as reasonable freedoms. Most people would happily eradicate paedophilia if they could, but we should never use that as an excuse to squash other freedoms. Tools such as Freenet need to exist to protect us all. If the police do indeed manage to catch up with it, then we'll need to design a new version that is beyond them. Let the police worry about real crime, and in most cases we will all support them, but let's make sure for the benefit of all mankind, that we never allow them full overall control. Freedom will always need a voice and while there exists anyone who would oppress it, we will need Freenet or its equivalent. More power to you!
dang your software is confusing to use
and yeah, i'm one of those who came on the bandwagon after the article. lol i came to this place cos somebody posted a link to it, from the article comments
Ian, apologies in advance. I mention Freenet in passing in my new book, Child's Play, and unfortunately it is precisely for CP purposes...
But I promise I didn't just Google "How paedophiles hide their online identities" or something similar. I attended a Freenet guest lecture at Queen Mary, University of London many years back when I was doing my CompSci degree. I can't quite remember if it was you that gave the lecture, but the concept stuck.
Hi,
Also came here via the Guardian article, regardless of the tone of the article i'm glad for being pointed in this direction. Great work !
Only found out about this via the Guardian article, stopped reading at "Unfathomable and mysterious" as by then and I just wanted the download address and was bored with the rest. So well done to the Guardian for highlighting this!
The article focuses on the negative. You admit that freenet is used for awful purposes. Could anyone elaborate on the postive applications?
@Stuart and @Franz, I agree that the guy talking about 500X more data on the "darknet" than the public WWW is a weird number, I really have no idea what he is talking about, and the person Andy quotes sounds like they are trying to sell something! The term "darknet" isn't well defined, although we have a precise meaning for it within the context of Freenet.
@Matt, not sure why Andy didn't mention the Google donation, but that is actually only the latest in a few large donations the project has had from various sources.
@Kia, very interesting! I'll have to keep an eye out for your book and see if I can find the mention. We're really not afraid of the CP issue, its a valid and interesting discussion, although obviously we come down on the side of free communication even if it can be abused by a small minority.
@Cee, all the benefits of freedom of speech free from censorship. Consider the plight of political dissidents in countries like China or Iran. Consider whistle-blowers who could lose their jobs or worse if they are identified. There are lots of benefits.
"I told him what I tell everyone, which is that like most people I wish CP didn't exist, but there are many ways to get it other than Freenet, and I don't think people should be denied the freedom to communicate just because a small minority might use it for something we don't agree with."
Hmm. I would've thought that providing even one child pornographer with the means to ply their trade would be one too many.
grauniadreader
Presumably you'd like the Royal Mail to close down then too.
@grauniadreader, by that logic the inventors of the Internet should have kept it to themselves. The inventors of the photographic camera and the printing press too.
Many valuable tools can be used by bad people to do bad things. This does not mean that these tools shouldn't exist.
From my very first days of using the web I've tened to think that posting online is equivalent of writing your thoughts on the wall, though with a bigger possible audience and no way to 'whitewash the wall'. It's fascinating to learn that smth as a freenet does exist out there. The article itself definately has negative ovrtones, still it's great that it sheds some light on things beyond routinely known web. I also think that the google might be good for very superficial searches. There's no unexpectedness factor in it.
Ian,
I enjoyed reading the (not quite balanced but reasonable) Guardian article and came here to read your post. I had no idea that any of this existed. It is very interesting.
I've downloaded your software and am having a look round. Sure you won't be suprised to find that I've not found the "CP HERE" button yet!
All the best,
Ian