On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:14 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bertagaz@ptitcanardnoir.org">bertagaz@ptitcanardnoir.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
to. On the other hand, if this person is using a dynamic DNS system that<br>
does not keeps logs (not found one stating it clearly at the moment), all<br>
the gov agents have is the current IP, if it has one... That could make a<br>
big difference :)<br></blockquote><div><br>How providers handle logs is certainly one of the most important questions for whether they are "Freedombox friendly" or not. :-)<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> > And to me (an I don't think I'm the only one) that<br>
> >is an important problem. What are the logging practice of the<br>
> >community-driven one you talk about? Do they have privacy/anonymity in<br>
> >mind?<br></div></blockquote><div><br>We should ask them. :-)<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">> >But I don't see a problem to offer both solutions, and let users choose.<br>
<div class="im">
> >Do you?<br>
><br>
> No I don't.<br></div></blockquote><div><br>I actually think it is important that users have as much choice as possible - the more diversity the ecosystem has, the better. This is not an argument against building our own dynamic DNS, so much as an argument FOR making sure Freedomboxes are interoperable with the current offerings - commercial, community, or otherwise. :-)<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>Bjarni R. Einarsson<br>The Beanstalks Project ehf.<br><br>Making personal web-pages fly: <a href="http://pagekite.net/" target="_blank">http://pagekite.net/</a><br>