Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com> writes:
so all that a government need do to censor a particular site is to scan for those messages and issue cancels. Sure, your site and those upstream may not accept such messages, but potentially they can still wipe out a large fraction of the system or at least force users to change their eternity URLs on a regular basis.
Two comments on this:
- I understand cancels are ignored a lot of places, due to problems with censorous people, and pranksters issuing tons of forged cancels. These censorous people are actually doing us a big favour because it is their actions which has led to the widespread policy of ignoring cancels.
Yep. (I hope my making available an easy-to-use program for foring cancels helped a little too, he he he.)
However this is going on other peoples information. I don't have any figures for how widespread the practice of configuring news to ignore cancels is.
Major ISPs (America Online, Netcom, Earthlink..) all ignore cancels. More precise numbers would be interesting.
However I'm not sure having passphrases is that good of an idea, because it'll be furtively passed around amongst the community of the person who submitted the documents, but that can always leak out.
I can't think of a clever way to use public keys (and don't think this is a good idea anyway)
Longer term perhaps some of Ross Anderson's more advanced ideas can be added, as discussed by Ryan Lackey in the thread entitled "distributed data store, a la eternity".
Adam, you're doing a great job. Can I buy you a dinner when I'm in London? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps