Maybe I thought about this too far and missed freenet’s author points, maybe I’m just pissed off with people playing by the rules that wants to remove other people’s privacy and increase the privacy of people in power.

Maybe I’m just lame and this is the coolest thing ever.

robust safeguards against illegal usage

So it’s not truly anonymous? Isn’t the entire point of anonymity is to be against people snooping on your private business? Also, since when illegal a catch-all term for all bad things?

Owning slave was legal, and that is certainly bad. Apartheid is still legal in places and that is certainly bad. Criticizing the govt are illegal in MANY countries, but that is certainly bad. Jaywalking is illegal, but does that warrants it being bad?

Does the author of Freenet appoints his moral to a law other human made, god(s?) made, or he himself made?