Hi Ryan, Hi List: Thank you for your personal account on this. I haven't been talking about this question for too long. It is very valuable to me to find people who are interested.
On 10/04/2016 03:41 PM, Ryan Getz wrote: > I wasn't going to reply to this but after seeing the message a couple > of times, I decided I'd chip in. Like Stefan, I am not affiliated > directly with the GNUnet project and my response and opinions do not > reflect those or the project or contributors. They are my personal > opinions alone. > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Huchler wrote: > > You should not blaime the tools for people doing bad stuff with > it. Hell > > americans even allow guns for everybody and encurage everybody to have > > 100 guns at their home, even they get used often for terrible crimes. > > And the main purpose of weapons is to kill people and animals, > while the > > main purpose of GnuNet is not to do criminal stuff. > > > I liked your response Stefan. thank you for replying. Although I think > the above statement has a valid point to make, I think it misrepresents > America pretty significantly. Most Americans do not own guns nor are > people encouraged to stockpile them (maybe in specific circles but this > is certainly not representative of the country). > > > Jan Eichstaedt <jan.eichsta...@iopn.org > <mailto:jan.eichsta...@iopn.org>> writes: > > > > > Dear GNUnet Project: > > > > > > The other day I asked "why are Measures Against Abuse not a > topic of the > > > project's FAQ?" When I describe the GNUnet to ordinary people (of > > > different nationality and background) and then that I would like > to help > > > hacking on it, very similar questions arise: > > > > > > 'Wouldn't this be a perfect hiding-place or tool for <fill in > > > descriptions of very bad people>?' > > > I hear this question quite often (although more commonly for different > networks). The answer, in my opinion, is difficult. > > > > > The Question > > > > > > I would like to know whether the GNUnet Project already has or is > > > planning on any measures against using the GNUnet in inhumane > ways, i.e. > > > using it to diminish human's "... right to life, liberty and > security of > > > person." (UN General Assembly, 1948, §3). Thus, by inhumane I > mean any > > > deed that is violating any of the human rights as adopted and > proclaimed > > > by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. > > > > > > Please let me explain the wording of this question and why this is > > > fitting to a project like the GNUnet. My usage of terms like > abuse, good > > > deeds, bad deeds and the like misled some. E.g., the word abuse > led to: > > > "... seem to all be of a commercial nature". Unfortunately, > abuse does > > > not stop there but goes way beyond. Thus, I now try to define > what would > > > be good or bad and abridge it by "humane' and 'inhumane' > respectively. > > > > > > Because a p2p net would span multiple nations, this definition > needs to > > > be based on a broad consensus, i.e. across nations. The > constitution and > > > law of which particular nation should apply? > > > > > > A p2p net has so much positive potential (not defined on purpose) > > > wouldn't it be great to diminish it's negative potential (see > above for > > > a definition)? > > > After attempting to answer this question, I think it is far more > personal than it initially seems. Networks and most technologies in > general are impartial. The meaning of right and wrong has no direct > translation to our software, hardware, networks and even varies by > region (local laws). You've clarified your definitions but I think most > would agree the priority and interpretation varies by region and > countries. We've seen attempts to address this long standing policy > issue that the internet brought and what we see are trade offs but no > complete solution. > > I would encourage you to look at the "Great Firewall of China" as one > example of a country attempting to address this with the internet. One > could look at this solution as a way to restrict material and > communication deemed illegal or "bad" but another could look at the > censorship, issues with effectiveness and come to different conclusions. > Meanwhile, it fails to allow only the "good" while others bypass it to > do "bad". > > Personally, I think people like to paint the world into firm concepts of > black/white, good/bad, humane/inhumane. The world is far more complex > with nearly everything falling somewhere between the two extremes of the > spectrum. If your requirements are something that allows only the "good" > but never the "bad", I'm afraid you'll likely be waiting quite some time > before any communications platform, that allows easy communication at a > large scale, to meet these requirements. I have yet to see a proposal > for such a solution without any significant trade-offs or that works at > scale. I see it the same way: no black no white, all gray. This does not stop me, however, from wishing to have at least a lighter gray. I can very much relate to what you have written. I'm not waiting for perfection, either. (Nevertheless, "delay is preferable to error" (T.J.).) > > Computers can be used for both "bad" and "good". The internet, the web, > email, telecom networks (wired and wireless) have varying levels of > centralization and yet even with great censorship cannot meet this > expectation of control over how it is used. End to end encrypted > messaging platforms are often also a target of this criticism but even > those who shift to a man-in-the-middle or "backdoor" approach fail to > address this entirely. Even if this control would be desired and > implemented without any abuse (from the controlling authority), what has > truly been accomplished? Have you accomplished what you desired to? You > use Silk Road as an example of what to prevent. We spent a lot of time > looking at platforms as the abuse, rather than them being just that - a > platform. When you shut down an encrypted communication platform that > was used for abuse, the abuse does not stop, it typically moves. > Elminate the internet and criminals will use cell phones (often > pre-paid/"burner" phones - already used for this purpose). Eliminate > cell phones and criminals will meet in person or use private couriers. > You're moving the "issue" but not really preventing it. Perhaps as an > operator, you did manage to get it off your network.. this may seem > great but is it actually a net benefit to mankind? Often it is not, the > issue has only migrated. Your line of arguments seems sound and reasonable to me. One cannot prevent all inhumane usage of a p2p network. Where this was tried civil rights suffer. Wouldn't it, however, be reasonable to develop a internal way to deal with inhumane deeds if they surface? This would be far from perfect, which is not desirable in the first place. You gave the reason for this. > > I know many people struggle with this. Some of the early contributors to > the internet have made comments that they would've done things > differently if they had today's knowledge of threats. The goal was to > make it easy to connect without much thought of security. While I've > seen comments stating they may have done things differently, after > seeing how things played out, I have not seen one who regrets their > contributions entirely. It may be unfortunate that people can use any > system for unintended, and sometimes malicious usage but that does not > alone mean that these systems should not exist or people should not > contribute to them. My automobile is great for transportation but in the > wrong hands, with ill intent, it can become a deadly weapon. While it is > not perfect, I'm certainly glad it exists, along with computers, the > internet, the telecom networks, etc. Your argument apply for a very wide array of artifacts, form computers to automobiles. Why not focus on p2p networks. I find them very special. In their particular way they can become means that would help to keep inhuman usage at bay, while not perfectly so (see above). > > Rather than asking "what prevents this from being used for evil?" it may > be more appropriate to ask "does the good seem to outweigh the bad?". > This will be a personal opinion and your right to decide on whatever > answer you feel is best but I do feel it is important to understand and > think about how this issue applies to virtually everything... even, as > Stefan mentioned earlier, outside of communication or technology > (although I think communication, in general, has no current solution to > this). This may not have answered your question but hopefully it > provides some insight into how some feel about this topic and inspires > some additional consideration around the question. At first glance, it seems plausible to characterize this as personal. However, the balancing of opposing entity's (in particular legal) positions -- may they be characterized as humane vs. inhumane or else wise -- is mostly a matter for public, societal, and predominantly juridical authorities. This makes finding a balance visible to others. I would recommend that also the GNUnet Project should care just how it is perceived by others. A perception that would be supported by working on some-day-wise self-government. From my perspective, your thoughtful answer has very well contributed to a favorable perception of the GNUnet Project. I very much appreciate that; thank you so much. Best Regards, Jan > > Best Regards, > Ryan > > > _______________________________________________ > Help-gnunet mailing list > Help-gnunet@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet > -- PD Dr. Jan Eichstaedt 2041 Swans Neck Way Reston, VA 20191-4023, USA Phone: +1 571 306 4800
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Help-gnunet mailing list Help-gnunet@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet