[2] Interest in anonymous P2P systems has increased in recent years for many reasons, ranging from the desire to share files without revealing one's network identity and risking litigation[3] to distrust in governments, concerns over mass surveillance and data retention, and lawsuits against bloggers.
P2P users who desire anonymity usually do so as they do not wish to be identified as a publisher (sender), or reader (receiver), of information.
Common reasons include: A particularly open view on legal and illegal content is given in The Philosophy Behind Freenet.
Perceptions of good and evil can also change (see moral panic); for example, if anonymous peer-to-peer networks had existed in the 1950s or 1960s, they might have been targeted for carrying information about civil rights or anarchism.
Supporters of this view, such as Phil Zimmermann, argue that anti-surveillance technologies help to equalize power between governments and their people,[5] which is the actual reason for banning them.
Some claim that true freedom of speech, especially on controversial subjects, is difficult or impossible unless individuals can speak anonymously.
Controversial information which a party wants to keep hidden, such as details about corruption issues, is often published or leaked anonymously.
Sometimes a blogger writing under their real name faces a choice between either staying silent or causing a harm to themselves, their colleagues or the company they work for.
Some bloggers have faced multimillion-dollar lawsuits[9] (although they were later dropped completely[10]); anonymous blogging provides protection against such risks.
In the case of a European travel agency, more than 80 .com websites were shut down without any court process and held by the registrar since then.
As a matter of personal freedom, many people do not want processes in place by default which supply unnecessary data.
Online surveillance, such as recording and retaining details of web and e-mail traffic, may have effects on lawful activities.
According to law professor Daniel J. Solove, such effects "harm society because, among other things, they reduce the range of viewpoints being expressed and the degree of freedom with which to engage in political activity.
For example, each node in the MUTE network has an overlay address that is derived from its public key.
This is similar to the Internet, where widespread use has been followed by waves of spam and distributed DoS (Denial of Service) attacks.
Alternatively, users can exchange passwords or keys with their friends to form a decentralized network.
Even if a government were to outlaw the use of wireless P2P software, it would be difficult to enforce such a ban without a considerable infringement of personal freedoms.