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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Maybe.  PGP et al seem to have easier ways of path folding available
> than a darknet would -- I don't normally object to identifying myself
> and verifying keys with someone I only know marginally, but I do to
> exchanging freenet contact info, particularly when people's online
> freenet personas are divorced from their node operating personas.  I
> have no way to learn anything at all about the node operator from
> within freenet, without risking my anonymity as a node operator.

Certainly... Within the fragment there should already be a functional
darknet, but enlarging it could be a problem.
> 
> > 
> > > 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...
> 
> The central large network is against some content.  The fact that it
> is larger makes it much more valuable as a network.  Therefore I am
> inclined to act in such a way as to stay on the big network.  That
> means participating in and reinforcing any existing groupthink, right?
>  And that positive feedback loop means there will be groupthink and
> that it will probably be strong and evident.

Thank you for making that explicit. That's worth thinking about.
> 
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> When you say "part of more than one darknet," are you referring to
> separate clusters within one large network, or entirely divorced
> networks?

Divorced networks.
> 
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> If I'm running an illegal freenet node, that means I'm willing to risk
> the chance of being prosecuted for one count of whatever crime they
> make it.  It doesn't mean I'm also willing to risk prosecution for 238
> counts of knowingly allowing my computer to transmit child porn.  As
> best I can tell, the law is reasonably tolerant of "I did everything I
> could reasonably be expected to do" as a defense.  If the network is
> such that I can't easily do anything about child porn, and there's no
> evidence I personally looked at or posted it, then I'm at least
> somewhat optimistic about avoiding prosecution.  If I actively failed

Really? If there is primary legislation making it a crime to run a node,
that will presumably make it far easier to convict you of related crimes..

> to vote against it through normal software features, then I'm a lot
> less optimistic.
> 
> > >
> > > 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...
> 
> I have friends who I would trust to not reveal that I'm running a
> freenet node, even if it was highly illegal.  That doesn't mean I want
> any chance of them discovering my personal taste in, say, fetish porn.

That's assuming that your fetish for dead chickens turns out to be
prohibited by the groupthink, yes.

>  Even if they would be willing to allow it on their nodes, I think my
> privacy from them is important -- in some ways more important than my
> privacy from the government, depending on exactly what content is
> under discussion.

/me renames Freenet PornNet. ;)

I have friends who rsync their porn. But I can see your point. Is this
an issue only for porn? What class of material is subject to this
consideration? Personally I avoid material that could be used to
blackmail me, traceable or not.

Your privacy against local nodes is only an issue if your content is
voted down.
> 
> 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)

iD8DBQFC1DgeHzsuOmVUoi0RAmnTAJ9C1qGbnmPbQSn+Ku+5yjEcAGg8bwCfeKkG
BpkCyU0mEgOSYiVziKruvRY=
=wiof
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----