Flooding and its problems

On Friday 16 May 2003 06:32 pm, you wrote:
> However, because of the way (and the reasons for which) IIP is designed, I
> don't really think punitive action should be taken except for in extreme
> cases. (I think there could be a few extreme cases, but most would involve
> situations that could result in physical death in the real world.)

Hezekiah,

I respect you voicing your opinion. I would like you to clarify some things, 
and give some of my opinion.

You said:
"Because of the way (and the reasons for which) IIP is designed, I don't 
really think punitive action should be taken except for in extreme cases"

This would seem to indicate that the code is being engineered in such a way so 
that 'extreme cases' (by "someones" definition") would call for bending of 
the algorithms.

Also, who would do the punishing, and what are the rules and punishments for 
violating them?

IIP is not a jurisdiction, it is a codebase, and while running a 
communications network.

Coders and network/node operators of a system for anonymous / encrypted speech 
should never ever get into the debate on issues of content. This is politics. 
Once anyone starts talking about limits and punishments, they immediately set 
themselves up as a target of control and abuse.

All of the current wars against free speech are waged on the reason of 
'extreme cases'. Terrorism, kiddie porn, drugs, money laundering, dangerous 
political or religious ideas or criticsm.

If there is any way that *ANY* speech COULD be punished, I said "could" not 
should, but could be punished, then there is a serious flaw in the codebase 
and architecture.

The IIP system needs to be on the level of pure 'CARRIER' status. It cannot be 
responsible for its users actions. The moment IIP starts taking 
responsibility to 'police' the system, is the end of IIP. The code must make 
it impossible to police the network.

Lets touch on abuse of the network. Flooding for example, or DOS attacks on 
the network. If this is a problem, it is not a problem with any law or need 
to take punitive action. This means there are serious architecture 
shortcomings and issues with the system. Politics, lawyer speak, punishments 
etc, are silly and will never solve the issue.

The issue of flooding, DOS attacks, massive channel SPAM etc are not legal 
issues. They are a pure and simple engineering problem. Pure engineering.

Some of the core of the issue has been called for centuries the 'tragedy of 
the commons'. This may always be an issue, as long as public 'commons' 
channels like '#anonymous' give free reign to any and everyone.

This is the magic of private property. We don't have 'free speech' in my home, 
if you are in my home, and you have bad breath, I can tell you to leave and 
it is my right. Free speech does not enslave me or deprive me of the control 
and right to manage my personal property. This is the same case in the 
#distributedcity channel. It is 'pretty much' free reign, but with limits.
You can call my limits of speech in #dc to be limits on free speech. You are 
damn right. I am the caretaker of this channel with property rights to manage 
it on behalf of LP.

So the abuse of a channel that "IIP" says is public, and a free speech 
location, is fine and dandy, but with that type of a 'commons' it will 
continue to be spammed, dos'd, flooded, disrespected, and destroyed.

Remember, even though I kick or ban etc someone from my channel, does not gag 
him. He can always go to #anonymous, or create his own channels. Channel 
ownership, and moderation, and its users responsible use of the channel 
creates value. Just like the manager of a restaurant caring for the quality 
of the establishment. Even if it means throwing a loud-mouthed drunk out on 
his ass in the street.

As IIP moves more toward a decentralized system, the power to control a 
centralized IRCD will no longer be a policy of trust we have in Nop, but will 
be in the code. This is a good thing.

I tried to make the case, that Coders and IIP network operators are different 
from the owners of private channels.

The coders/network operators should shift control of content to the owners of 
the channels.

An official IIP sanctioned #anonymous channel is a silly idea as it places 
ownership of the channel in the hands of the IIP coders/network operators 
giving a tendency to have these conversations about punishing people. While 
claiming it is an open channel, yet at the same time, saying that they are 
watching, and that violaters of certain rules will be punished.

IIP should not sanction any channel as open and free speech unless it is going 
to ingore all and any of all content that is placed in it. Similar to 
freenet. Freenet does not say that use is 'free open speech' 'except for 
certain limits'. How does freenet do this? Via CODE. not policy. Code.

A possible way for this to happen with #anonymous in the new system, is to 
create the channel, and as the owners of a channel will have the crypto keys 
to the channel, thus giving them ops, then publicly distribute the keys to 
this channel to all users. *THAT* would guarantee free speech, and no 
liability, since there is no central control point.

Anyone that says 'we cannot do that, what if someone says X or Y or Z', should 
not be using IIP/Freenet and should spend more time on snooping, or key 
escrow systems that are meant to solve this problem.

Either we are going to have free speech uninhibited, or we are NOT.

IIP does not need any laws, a constitution of guaranteed liberties or 
limitations. We just need code. Code that will let me say anything that I 
want to say, or need to say. Code that will allow me to say that there is no 
God, and live, while everyone else around me is being burned alive and 
slaughtered. I don't need to go into all the reasons why we need privacy or 
anonymous communications.

Sure there will be abuses, but when there are, IIP Coders or network operators 
cannot be responsible. They can only be, when they have control. Once they 
have control, it is only a matter of 'who has control'. Once its about 
control, the control will be taken away from those we trust today, and the 
control will be used against us tommorrow.

In closing, our only hope for secure private and anonymous communications will 
never live because of laws, politicians, police, or opinions controlling, 
giving, or limiting our speech. Our hope will only be fufilled through 
engineering.

-Neo