Re: [Tech] Crazy idea: How trust in darknets enables secure democratic censorship

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > If the majority is wrong, it will disaffiliate from the minority. We are
> > not talking about global voting here, we are talking about each node
> > deciding on the basis of adjacent, trusted nodes. Yes there is some
> > influence as far as majorities go, but the likely scenario is that the
> > network splits into the two groups.
> 
> Doesn't this mean that in the normal course of events, the majority
> keeps the main contiguous network, while the minority ends up with
> many tiny islands (potentially only 1-2 nodes) instead of an
> "alternate" network? 

Yes... sometimes. Hopefully the subnetworks would already be connected
when they join up - look at the PGP/GPG web of trust model; you get
fragments, and the fragments tend to connect with one another.

> If that minority wishes to repair their network,
> then they have to find each other through other, presumably more
> vulnerable, channels, right? 

Probably, if they didn't have any existing connections.

> It sounds to me like this has potential
> to enforce groupthink through network value effects.

Please elaborate...
> 
> Also, there is a chilling effect even without outing nodes, right? 
> Suppose I find freenet valuable as a source of semi-acceptable
> content, but am also considering "marginally" acceptable content. 
> Wouldn't I be tempted to self-censor out of fear of losing my good
> connectivity?  It seems to me that self-censorship to stay within
> *percieved* limits is potentially even more limiting than those same
> limits actually are.

That may be a point. There's no reason you can't be part of more than
one darknet, but certainly nodes would self-censor to avoid having
enforcement procedures taken against them.
> 
> And finally, let's suppose I use freenet for a variety of non-illegal
> things, and don't partake in local votes to censor content at all (on
> libertarian grounds).  In the event the govt seizes my node looking
> for (nonexistent) illegal activities, aren't I likely to find myself
> liable for failing to vote correctly, since the network has provided a
> convenient method to do so?  And isn't this threat also likely to
> create more negative voting than would otherwise occur, and thus
> exacerbate the chilling effects?

If we don't provide such a mechanism, they will still find a way to make
you liable for crimes conducted involving your node. The whole darknet
architecture assumes nodes will eventually be illegal in and of
themselves.
> 
> I must say, I would be hesitant to use a censorship-enabled freenet. 
> Small communities with the ability to censor can be very oppressive,
> and it seems entirely reasonable for me to want privacy from the same
> friends I am connected to, even though I mostly trust them.

Well, you trust them enough to connect to them despite the fact that
Freenet is illegal in itself (in the given scenario). Beyond that, your
anonymity would only be blown (to them, not to others), if you posted
something objectionable and it could be traced back...
> 
> Evan
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC1Cr3HzsuOmVUoi0RAlyAAJ9QDkIASdJtP/FpHZtp/jDSJiOD3gCePqvm
z6FIY/PefZX49zi6uI8BsyQ=
=qNzM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----