>> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately.
> Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?
Hm, I admit fault, hastily writing the above reply. I do not have sources for actual convictions, so what I wrote is not validated.
s/has led to/may risk/
Source[1] that I read prior to my comment, which is under the thread[2] "Suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives". The discussion was along the lines of, if you have encrypted data, and the state "knows" it has illegal content, your not decrypting it makes you liable for it. Thus the extrapolation to use of Freenet, which forwards encrypted content from others, and is heavily littered with CP[3], according to HN commenters.
No, not just for using it that I am aware of. Just meaning that pure anonymity on Freenet is not the absolute best and they suggest trusted peers only. Traffic analysis (among other things) is a hard problem to solve without introducing noise and requiring large bandwidth. I think what the parent was saying was that [1] is possible is unfortunate (without making any statements supporting the criminals of course).
Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?