[Freedombox-discuss] Rouge Freedomboxes and government intervention
weaver2world at gmail.com
Tue Jun 21 23:45:39 UTC 2011
On 22 June 2011 03:43, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> On 11-06-21 at 11:56am, Anthony Papillion wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> > I've been following the discussion here on the list and one thing I've
> > not seen a lot of discussion about is government intervention. Since
> > the Freedombox will be open source and use a peer to peer methodology,
> > what's stopping a hostile government from running their own
> > 'Freedombox Honeypots' and targeting/locating users for arrest?
> "FreedomBox for Freedom Fighters" certainly need more thought in that
> area. Not realistic for a first release of FreedomBox IMO.
> "FreedomBox for consumers" need no special anti-government design, just
> the core implicit anti-centralized-logging design.
Where we have a rapidly accelerating situation where governments are
becoming increasingly less transparent and corporate lobby group interests
are being taken care of rather than the comprehensive requirement of the
electorate, consumers *are* freedom fighters whether they are aware of it or
After recent discussions with an acquaintance with the Tor project, who
suggests we run our own server.
But there is this as well:
Packages like cryptcat bcrypt and ccrypt could also have application.
I see nothing wrong with using unstable packages at this stage as they save
so much development time. A minimal time factor by a focussed team would
make them stable in short order.
Once I'm financial again, I would be prepared to run a server or even two
(in Australia and New Zealand).
Even an eternal newbie like me can learn enough for that.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful.
— Lucius Annæus Seneca.
Terrorism, the new religion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Freedombox-discuss