3 ms·

I think the idea of 16 months for contempt is legally ridiculous. However, they have some evidence. I presume their de-construction of freenet will have given

I think the idea of 16 months for contempt is legally ridiculous. However, they have some evidence. I presume their de-construction of freenet will have given them some insight. The technical issue that concerns me, and I'm not sure if they have addressed, is how freenet stores data and whether the material they allege is his or a 3rd party's. Last time I looked into freenet it was doing the equivalent of storing chunks of other people's data, encrypted of course, on your machine. Like being a torrent server and storing some of the actual data the torrents refer to. A peer to peer data network, not just a reference library. Yes that sounds crazy, but that was the state a few years ago. No wonder it ran like treacle.

brokenmachine 10y ago
Yes, it's a bit crazy the way Freenet works, like mad scientist crazy. > Freenet not only transmits data between nodes but actually stores them, working as a huge distributed cache. > While users can insert data into the network, there is no way to delete data. Due to Freenet's anonymous nature the original publishing node or owner of any piece of data is unknown. The only way data can be removed is if users don't request it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet#Distributed_storage_and_caching_of_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet#Distributed_storage_an... You allocate a certain amount of space on your machine to an encrypted cache, that you can't even decrypt yourself or even know what it contains. So there's no way to prove that someone even accessed a certain chunk of data, unless they saved it unencrypted to their machine, which I guess is what the Feds need to prove.