A SYSTEM that makes it easy to publish information on the Internet
anonymously could give a free rein to terrorists, software pirates and
paedophiles, say Internet watchdogs. But the creators of Freenet believe the
risk is worth taking to preserve free speech on the Net.
Ian Clarke began creating Freenet in his final year at Edinburgh University,
in response to Australia鈥檚 proposals for stringent Internet censorship laws
(New Scientist, 12 June 1999, p 22).
鈥淭he Freenet protocol is designed
to make tracing the publishers of content impossible,鈥� says Clarke. 鈥淚t鈥檚 also
extremely difficult to remove files from Freenet once they鈥檝e been
辫耻产濒颈蝉丑别诲.鈥�
Unlike files on the Web, files on Freenet do not have a unique Internet
address that specifies the computer on which they are held. Instead, files are
distributed around the Net on computers belonging to Freenet members. Several
copies of each file exist in different places to make it hard to delete
them.
Advertisement
When a file is stored, it is given a 鈥渒ey鈥�, Freenet鈥檚 equivalent of a Web
address. The software then forwards the data to other servers, but the creator
of the file doesn鈥檛 know to which. To retrieve a file, users enter the key.
Their computer then queries Freenet servers until one is found that has the
associated files.
If a Freenet user has a copy of a file on their machine, it doesn鈥檛 mean they
published it. In fact, they might not even know it鈥檚 there. Clarke argues that
at no point can any one computer user be held responsible for Freenet files,
because there is no way of knowing their origin. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a perfect machine
anarchy,鈥� says Clarke. 鈥淣o single computer is in control.鈥�
But Roger Darlington, chairman of the Internet Watch Foundation鈥攁n
independent body that monitors websites hosted in Britain for illegal material
such as child pornography鈥攊s worried about the implications of Freenet.
鈥淭here is clear potential for misuse by criminals, terrorists and paedophiles,鈥�
he says.
Keith Akerman, chairman of Britain鈥檚 Association of Chief Police Officers鈥�
working group on computer crime, agrees. 鈥淚鈥檓 all for freedom of speech, but
networks like [Freenet] could severely impede our ability to investigate
Internet crimes,鈥� he says.