Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Stefan Huchler]

Jan Eichstaedt  writes:

> Hello List:
>
> Please let me suggest to tone down and focus on the task at hand, i.e.
> find an answer to The Question and decide whether or not to put it in
> the FAQ. Thinking in terms of war is usually worsening things. Also
> simplifying in terms of good and bad seem to distract. I tried to
> introduce humane -- inhumane, instead, because one has a definition in
> the human rights as adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly
> resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

Well than it would be more like a statement companies have, some sort of
legal agreement, without any enforcement.

Well the faq place is cheap and you can add something to it. It would
then just not mean much, more like marketing.

As example sharing child porn would as example not fall under that
declaration, sharing pictures of crimes is more like a state level law,
like in northern countries they have transparent processes without any
restrictions to media about the crime.

So you would not only have the problem that it would be very problematic
to implement technicaly you would virtualy block nothing. I mean there
is not much space to violate human rights over a
filesharing/communication network.

I just see it as delecate problematic proposel especialy if we stay
always completly abstract on every single detail.

I mean mentioning the Resolution at least clarifies one point a bit so
thanks for that.

I just see it problematic to have a very vague abstract gummy statement,
cause such stuff can be missused by some groups very easily.

But thats just my thoughts :)


___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[LRN]

On 12.10.2016 20:29, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
> Even before asking how to prevent inhumane deeds (I avoid the terms good
> and bad, when I can, as laid out in the foregoing conversations), the
> question is whether or not to prevent inhumane deeds. Your line of
> arguments seems to me that if GNUnet's current infrastructure is not
> supporting to prevent anything then a discussion about preventing
> inhumane deeds is obsolete.
> 
> IMHO goals come before means. GNUnet's infrastructure is a means to an
> end, too, that must be defined beforehand. Who knows? Perhaps most
> contributors of the GNUnet Project choose to not prevent anything from
> being done. Only after they have decided to prevent something, it would
> become relevant to ask further how to prevent it including to change the
> infrastructure.

As long as privacy and censorship resistance can only be achieved by using
encryption, it is impossible to achieve the goals of preventing inhumane
behaviour, because encryption is based on math, and math is orthogonal to
humanity.

-- 
O< ascii ribbon - stop html email! - www.asciiribbon.org


0x6759BA74.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Stefan Huchler]

ng0  writes:

> The following is even more my personal opinion and point of view:
> My counterquestion would be: Do current corporate and free networks
> prevent this? You can see twitter enabling white surpremacy,
> racists. The federated social network diaspora suffers from equal
> problems. But at the same time they enable the communication of other
> groups which depending on whoever writes the law could get in much
> trouble for even communicating about it (pro-choice in poland,
> anarchists in netherlands, etc).

Hello,

I just had to add that your comparsion is problematic, the main example
we had was childporn, you know state white surpremacy and racism, thats
free speech, in a network that nobody owns I dont see how pure different
views that are in most western countries at least legal, could be
forbidden.

You could then go on then about Feminism I am a Antifeminist (dont belive
that at least in western countries the females are the opressed people,
many indicators point to the opposite, but we should not start to argue
that, thats not the right place here).

So I have a bit o problem to mix here together clearly in 99% of all
countries illegal child porn with different political views. The ladder
should never be blocked, as long as its not some sort of REAL mobbing or
something like that.

But again I also dont see big chances taht even something like that
suceeds, if here a child in germany makes suicide because on facebook
people mobbed em, facebook dont even gives out the ip or name of the
persons so even on this centralised/non-anonym (for the distributor)
network, you cant enforce law.

If you go in such "dark" places you should know what could happen there
and take the nessasary precausious, but I basicly just tell that the
wrong person I guess :)

Just try not to mix in childporn with other political viewpoints, but it
shows how fast that happens, and if you would give anybody the power to
block lets say child porn, they would nearly guaranteed soon be used to
limit free speech or hunt small crimes like black copies.


___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[ng0]

Christian Grothoff  writes:

> [ Unknown signature status ]
> On 10/11/2016 12:14 PM, ng0 wrote:
>> So technically I do not
>> speak on behalf of the GNUnet Project (I think you mean someone employed
>> by iniria with this or the current project maintainer).
>
>
> I just have to briefly chime in on this.
>
> As the GNU maintainer, I am ultimately responsible (to GNU) for
> technical decisions (and licensing-compliance issues).  While my voice
> may therefore carry some additional weight, I really don't see the
> project as having a hierarchy (and as such there is no "speaker"). Most
> importantly, if you disagree with my technical choices too strongly, you
> can always fork! And if it is about an actual disagreement (and not a
> stupid misunderstanding), I would even say you should!
>
> Furthermore, Inria/TUM employees should not be seen as being more
> "representative" of the project than (other) volunteers. If there are
> any representatives, it's the elected GNUnet e.V. board (which can
> obviously speak for the GNUnet e.V., https://gnunet.org/ev).

Thanks for clearing that up. Just to make my choice of words clear:

In the past I've encountered various interpretations of words like
maintainer, contributor, and related ones and had discussions about
it. The irritation which occured because of these words was why I chose
to specify it like this.
Off-list(s) I've also been asked more than once if I am employed by
Inria/TUM because of work I do, so it can sometimes be confusing to
people who do not have the whole picture. They seem to make a
distinction between people who work for money for GNUnet and those who
have to get their income from elsewhere and still contribute to
GNUnet. I don't see the difference, a team is a team, but it's a
question I get surprisingly often.
Maybe it's also due to my position which makes it weird to understand
for people as I am between all GNUnet related projects - a less
confusing simplification would be to just say 'I work for GNUnet' and be
done with the confusion.

> Regardless of who can speak for the project, speech is also still cheap.
> In the end, what matters for GNUnet is code! Code "speaks" louder (and
> more clearly) than any philosophical discussion can: Once it is
> implemented, it becomes irrevocably part of our reality, if we like it
> or not. And then there is no point in arguing about what should be or
> could be, because something is.
>
>
> So to those interested in doing something about abuse,
> https://gnunet.org/p4t is one (so far unimplemented) proposal, and
> Taler-style payments (https://taler.net/) is another one many of us are
> already working on.
>
>
> However, only such *concrete* proposals for specific issues are useful,
> and specifically "abuse" is a term that is way too general (as anyone
> can interpret it in any way they see fit) to be addressed in a
> meaningful way. (Especially since there usually are two sides to many
> related issues: free speech vs. slander, censorship vs. misinformation,
> network neutrality vs. traffic optimization, Sybil attacks vs.
> unlinkable identities/pseudonyms, Spam vs. campaigning, etc.. But once
> we put these issues into specific technical designs, the discussions
> usually sharpen to actionable choices with clear consequences.)
> ___
> Help-gnunet mailing list
> Help-gnunet@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

-- 

___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Christian Grothoff]

On 10/11/2016 12:14 PM, ng0 wrote:
> So technically I do not
> speak on behalf of the GNUnet Project (I think you mean someone employed
> by iniria with this or the current project maintainer).


I just have to briefly chime in on this.

As the GNU maintainer, I am ultimately responsible (to GNU) for
technical decisions (and licensing-compliance issues).  While my voice
may therefore carry some additional weight, I really don't see the
project as having a hierarchy (and as such there is no "speaker"). Most
importantly, if you disagree with my technical choices too strongly, you
can always fork! And if it is about an actual disagreement (and not a
stupid misunderstanding), I would even say you should!

Furthermore, Inria/TUM employees should not be seen as being more
"representative" of the project than (other) volunteers. If there are
any representatives, it's the elected GNUnet e.V. board (which can
obviously speak for the GNUnet e.V., https://gnunet.org/ev).


Regardless of who can speak for the project, speech is also still cheap.
In the end, what matters for GNUnet is code! Code "speaks" louder (and
more clearly) than any philosophical discussion can: Once it is
implemented, it becomes irrevocably part of our reality, if we like it
or not. And then there is no point in arguing about what should be or
could be, because something is.


So to those interested in doing something about abuse,
https://gnunet.org/p4t is one (so far unimplemented) proposal, and
Taler-style payments (https://taler.net/) is another one many of us are
already working on.


However, only such *concrete* proposals for specific issues are useful,
and specifically "abuse" is a term that is way too general (as anyone
can interpret it in any way they see fit) to be addressed in a
meaningful way. (Especially since there usually are two sides to many
related issues: free speech vs. slander, censorship vs. misinformation,
network neutrality vs. traffic optimization, Sybil attacks vs.
unlinkable identities/pseudonyms, Spam vs. campaigning, etc.. But once
we put these issues into specific technical designs, the discussions
usually sharpen to actionable choices with clear consequences.)


0xE29FC3CC.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[ng0]

Hello,

sorry for top posting, I really see no way to split this up.
I am not employed by inria and I am not working on the codebase but I am
one of the volunteers working on/around GNUnet. So technically I do not
speak on behalf of the GNUnet Project (I think you mean someone employed
by iniria with this or the current project maintainer).
It's possible I derailed myself in terrible ways with the reply below,
so if anything is unclear reply here or offlist.


When you read this thread and the answers so far, I'd say with the
technical limitations of GNUnet in this regard the practical application
of such basic democracy can only happen in the applications users will
see in the end. Applications such as Secushare, Happyhydro and others
(Happyhydro at this moment only plans to integrate GNUnet, they will get
in touch sooner or later). Even then GNUnet might limit how much of or
how easily the discussed ideas might be applied by the applications.

The following is even more my personal opinion and point of view:
I initially found GNUnet in my very long search for the network I failed
to create in a reasonable secure way, a network which will enable people
in oppressive regimes to communicate, for activists to communicate in a
safe way. Later I added additional goals: a network where an application
can apply the safer-space and also to create an application / plugin of
an application which creates an lgbtiq (and other inclusions) friendly
date- and/or friendfinder network. Additionally to solve my frustration
as a musician: something (or rather multiple somethings) to bring means
of distribution, trade/sale/gifting, communication, web
presence/profile, event calendars/booking, search of musicians for your
band/project or other artists to collaborate with (not limited to music
necessarily but also other artists).
And then I got distracted by doing package and system creation.. But the
motivation of my original goals is a 'power to the people' one.

>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:42:33AM -0400, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
>>> 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 >> descriptions of very bad people>?'

My counterquestion would be: Do current corporate and free networks
prevent this? You can see twitter enabling white surpremacy,
racists. The federated social network diaspora suffers from equal
problems. But at the same time they enable the communication of other
groups which depending on whoever writes the law could get in much
trouble for even communicating about it (pro-choice in poland,
anarchists in netherlands, etc).
Can technology on its own solve a social problem by blocking the talk
about it or applying other ways to prevent exchange of any information
which is not desired by international/national laws?
I believe this is not possible, it has to be a combination of social and
technological approaches.
While technology is useful to solve certain problems, organize and
unite, it also amplifies the "bad" people however you classify such and
whatever they are for you. How useful will it be when certain
discussions disappear into the underground where its more difficult to
have a discussion between opposing points of view with the chance of
a third uninvolved group of people learning from the outcome of this?
I think the outcome of the discussion would be a useful addition to an
FAQ, but I also think it should point out the limitations of the
situation, that this problem needs to be challenged continuously in ways
outside of technology.


Because I've stated one group of "bad" for me before, I give one part of
selfdescription/position of myself which is already known to those who
collect such information because of exchange with others: My point of
view/origin comes from my experiences as what could be roughly described
as a genderqueer anarcho-syndicalist person. This does not explain the
above described points, but it gives some indication why 'power to
people' is an important factor for me.


-- ng0

Jan Eichstaedt  writes:

> Dear Lluís,
>
> Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. You reinforce my plea for
> an answer on behalf to the GNUnet Project.
>
> Your point is well received with me. Perhaps the GNUnet Project would
> prefer to have all the talk about a self-government in another email
> list. After all, self-government is not a likely part of the GNUnet
> Project's answer to my initial question.
>
> Just let me state one more thing about my idea of a self-government.
> Ideally it might help to empower and emancipate "the weak" by by uniting
> them.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Jan
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2016 06:56 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I'm 

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[LRN]

On 11.10.2016 3:26, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
> Dear Stefan,
> 
> As far as I have read, people here have very different opinions and
> preferences. I still have no idea about the stance of the majority of
> the active project members.
> 
> All the specifics and even the bold idea of a self-government are
> distracting, because here on the help-gnunet list the objective is
> simply to find an answer to my initial question. Obviously I'm not the
> one who can answer this.
> 

Not a core GNUnet developer, but here's my take on this, from the technical
standpoint.

GNUnet is an infrastructure for storing and transferring information. It
has multiple mechanisms for doing so, the most well-known ones are blocks
(what is used for actual file-sharing) and DHT (used for many things). The
following is *mostly* about block transfer mechanism (i'm not very familiar
with DHT).

Therefore, GNUnet can only do anything about transferring/storing information.

A GNUnet node can see information being transferred to/from it, it can do
that transfer and store that information, or refuse to do so. That's it.
The power GNUnet nodes have is only related to information, and is limited
to themselves. One GNUnet node can't affect another GNUnet node directly.

This can be used for the following:
1) Finding who is transferring/storing a particular bit of known information.
2) Preventing a particular bit of known information from being
transferred/stored.

And both are only possible if GNUnet nodes voluntarily do that (there's no
central authority that can coerce them into doing that), and, most
importantly, the "known" word used above means that the information that
needs finding/stopping must be found out somehow (found out *precisely*,
you can't do keyword filtering or anything like that), and then
disseminated among GNUnet nodes that willingly participate in the effort of
finding/stopping it.

Thus i see the following problems:
1) If information is being transferred in secret, it can't be found out,
and thus can't be stopped. Secret transfers are perfectly possible and are
a reasonable technique for some threat models. It requires a number of
nodes working together and sharing some kind of secret piece of information
(a hash, a non-trivial keyword) established prior to their communication,
or have a way to secretly communicate outside of GNUnet.
As long as all participants keep the secret, the information that they
transfer can't be decrypted and singled out as something that warrants
attention.

2) If information is found out, then there's the matter of deciding whether
it should be stopped or whether its source should be identified (which, by
the way, requires immediate action; if you wait too long, information can
be spread across the network, and you'll never find the originating node;
again, a very tight group of conspiring nodes can disseminate information
through the network in complete secrecy, then make it more widely known;
this can be countered only by having total surveillance over the network,
i.e. storing all information transfers on all nodes for later analysis,
which is expensive and no one will do that for you). Who gets to decide
that? The best thing i can come up with is a Web of Trust-like model where
each node gets a censorship list from some other, trusted (actually
trusted) nodes. This may or may not be done inside GNUnet, i'm not sure.

3) Because information must be known precisely for it to be stopped, simply
salting it will break any attempts at censorship. As long as there's a way
for the "bad" nodes to find out the new hashes without tipping off the rest
of the network (or the parts of it that decide what should be censored),
this is simply an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole (see (1)). Also, this
will make censorship lists grow exponentially - again, making it
impractical for participating nodes to censor information. Or the
censorship lists must be very short-lived.

As long as "bad" nodes behave themselves, it's not possible to prevent them
from communicating, because "badness" of information they transfer can only
be determined when information is decrypted (for which the decrypting node
must be clued in) and when that information is evaluated by humans (because
AI does not exist, yet). This is intentional, because "bad" is subjective
(as pointed out previously on this thread).

-- 
O< ascii ribbon - stop html email! - www.asciiribbon.org


0x6759BA74.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

Dear Lluís,

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. You reinforce my plea for
an answer on behalf to the GNUnet Project.

Your point is well received with me. Perhaps the GNUnet Project would
prefer to have all the talk about a self-government in another email
list. After all, self-government is not a likely part of the GNUnet
Project's answer to my initial question.

Just let me state one more thing about my idea of a self-government.
Ideally it might help to empower and emancipate "the weak" by by uniting
them.


Best Regards,
Jan



On 10/08/2016 06:56 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm also not affiliated with GNUnet but I'll give my few cents.
> 
> I agree that this makes for a good candidate for a FAQ. And then comes my
> view.
> 
> As a technology provider, GNUnet allows the weak to be protected from the
> power. As some famous cryptopunk put it, cryptography is the only tool in
> hands of the weak that the power cannot break.
> 
> The powerful can make guns, sell guns, decide what is good or wrong,
> publish mass books about the morality you should have and how to judge
> foreign affairs, etc. The powerful (landowners, politicians, authorities,
> police) use to be behind the arms traffic, the main paths of drug dealing,
> with war and and genocides. The powerful are those who do the greatest
> harm and in control of most technology, and crypto is the only technology
> in hands of the weak.
> 
> Luckily, thanks to the spread of https, ciphered communications are not a
> reason to raise suspicion upon a user. Otherwise, the moto of the ruler
> "why do you want to hide me your things?" could have done much more harm.
> 
> Crypto can also be used by the powerful, by whatever bad guys. But the
> main point here IMO is that crypto is the only tech thing that ALSO the
> good weak guys can use for their organisation and gathering. If there is
> no crypto protection (anonymity, secrecy, etc), the main endangered people
> by that would be the weak good guys.
> 
> Regards,
> Lluís.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:42:33AM -0400, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
>> 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 > descriptions of very bad people>?'
>>
>> I also had some conversation about this off-list (with people I only
>> will disclose if they allow) of which the following is an attempt to
>> summarize the current status of the question.
>>
>> 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)?
>>
>> The Answer,
>>
>> or the attempts on it so far, I leave out, for now, because I would like
>> to know what people in the project are thinking. The outcome should be
>> an answer in the FAQ.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Help-gnunet mailing list
>> Help-gnunet@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
> 



___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

Hello,

I'm also not affiliated with GNUnet but I'll give my few cents.

I agree that this makes for a good candidate for a FAQ. And then comes my
view.

As a technology provider, GNUnet allows the weak to be protected from the
power. As some famous cryptopunk put it, cryptography is the only tool in
hands of the weak that the power cannot break.

The powerful can make guns, sell guns, decide what is good or wrong,
publish mass books about the morality you should have and how to judge
foreign affairs, etc. The powerful (landowners, politicians, authorities,
police) use to be behind the arms traffic, the main paths of drug dealing,
with war and and genocides. The powerful are those who do the greatest
harm and in control of most technology, and crypto is the only technology
in hands of the weak.

Luckily, thanks to the spread of https, ciphered communications are not a
reason to raise suspicion upon a user. Otherwise, the moto of the ruler
"why do you want to hide me your things?" could have done much more harm.

Crypto can also be used by the powerful, by whatever bad guys. But the
main point here IMO is that crypto is the only tech thing that ALSO the
good weak guys can use for their organisation and gathering. If there is
no crypto protection (anonymity, secrecy, etc), the main endangered people
by that would be the weak good guys.

Regards,
Lluís.

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:42:33AM -0400, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
> 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  descriptions of very bad people>?'
> 
> I also had some conversation about this off-list (with people I only
> will disclose if they allow) of which the following is an attempt to
> summarize the current status of the question.
> 
> 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)?
> 
> The Answer,
> 
> or the attempts on it so far, I leave out, for now, because I would like
> to know what people in the project are thinking. The outcome should be
> an answer in the FAQ.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Jan
> 
> 
> ___
> Help-gnunet mailing list
> Help-gnunet@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

-- 
(Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/

___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

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  > 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  > > 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 

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

Hi Matthias, hi List:

Thanks for your questions and comments. I very much appreciate your
emphasis on the expert's ethic and responsibility when it comes to
humane and inhumane deeds due to the expert's results.


On 10/05/2016 04:41 AM, Matthias Wachs wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> very interesting discussion, I favor to contribute to keep the discussion 
> going
> on since it is related to ethics and the responsibility we have as experts and
> scientists.
> 
> Just my few quick cents ... 
> 
> "Good" and "bad" always depends on definition and point of view, therefore it 
> is
> a challenge to apply such definitions.
> 
> I like the idea to you want to apply a common definition like the UN General
> Assembly proclamations, where a larger majority of humanity agrees upon.
> 
> I think history showed that we as experts have an ethical responsibility to
> consider the consequences of our work. And here a discussion is needed how to
> deal with 
> 
> On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 23:30 -0400, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
>> Dear Stefan,
>>
>> Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. To most of them I do
>> agree. However I come to different conclusions.
>>
>> You are right that a back door or even just weakening encryption is
>> dismal to the grater good of most of the peoples using GNUnet. As far as
>> I can see, p2p network's most interesting property is that a central
>> entity exhibiting control is not needed; neither for the sake of
>> coordinating anything nor for the sake of control of the content. To me
>> this seems tremendously important in any political discourse, as you
>> mentioned.
>>
>> Any advancement of human society requires the free exchange of
>> (political) ideas. Therefore, even the mere worry that an entity
>> (adversaries, governmental agencies of various sorts, etc.) might hit
>> you because you expressed your ideas leads to suppression of the
>> advancement of human society. So far I very much agree.
>>
>> The conclusion that -- because of the above -- control is not possible
>> rests (at least in part) on the assumption that a control instance is
>> necessary. I don't buy that. Why not letting all participants in a p2p
>> net take control? Not to the point that everybody is snooping on anybody
>> but to the extant that everybody can vote.
> 
> This is democracy to the extreme or in extension anarchy since it is based on
> the absence of authorities ...
> 
>>
>> I hope a new form of self-government could emerge for the idea and the
>> opportunities of p2p networks. Let the participants of the p2p network
>> decide. Off-list I heard the opinion that this could lead to a 'tyranny
>> of the majority.' On the project's web site one can read that "GNUnet is
>> supposed to be an anarchistic network ..."
>> Anarchy, though, is self-destructive, e.g. it favors merely the most
>> aggressive in the crowd. A network build on anarchy is therefore
>> unsustainable even if one provides that "... the only limitation for
>> peers is that they must contribute enough back to the network such that
>> their resource consumption does not have a significant impact on other
>> users" (https://gnunet.org/philosophy).
> 
> This is a very quick assessment about anarchy controversial discussed. Here 
> your
> underlying idea of man is that humans are evil per se.

No. It's only save to assume that humans are very different. All kinds
of different people live together. The problem with anarchy is that a
few inhumane people are enough to spoil the lives of all.

> 
>> Why not allowing self-government in a non-trivial way? The people using
>> the net could give themselves means to make rules and means to judge
>> about them and means to enforce them. With today's ideas this could be
>> done without 'tyranny of the majority' and without favoring the most
>> aggressive in the crowd.
> 
> Here the question I am interested in:
> 
> How do you imagine such a self-governing mechanism will not lead to 'tyranny 
> of
> the majority' (and even an oligarchy) eventually?

There is no easy way. If there is a solution it is specific to the
society to be self-governed. Political science knows of many differently
successful examples. In none of them a single person authored the terms.
In all of them it needed a process of years. For a starter, there first
need to be an understanding that self-government is useful and worth
working for. I think so. However, so far nobody else here.

Since in network all are connected a lot of things that have to do with
representation of the constituency might be unnecessary. Thus, I would
consider a grassroots democracy. However, grassroots democratic
decisions often fall pray of populism (Brexit, voting no on the peace
process in Columbia, 2016 primary results in the US Republican Party).
Let me recommend, therefore,

to look into census suffrage based on the solidarity and charity a voter
has shown for the common good.

A lot would need to be specified before one can actually tell whether
this might work. 

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Ryan Getz]

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  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  > > 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.

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 

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

Dear Stefan,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. To most of them I do
agree. However I come to different conclusions.

You are right that a back door or even just weakening encryption is
dismal to the grater good of most of the peoples using GNUnet. As far as
I can see, p2p network's most interesting property is that a central
entity exhibiting control is not needed; neither for the sake of
coordinating anything nor for the sake of control of the content. To me
this seems tremendously important in any political discourse, as you
mentioned.

Any advancement of human society requires the free exchange of
(political) ideas. Therefore, even the mere worry that an entity
(adversaries, governmental agencies of various sorts, etc.) might hit
you because you expressed your ideas leads to suppression of the
advancement of human society. So far I very much agree.

The conclusion that -- because of the above -- control is not possible
rests (at least in part) on the assumption that a control instance is
necessary. I don't buy that. Why not letting all participants in a p2p
net take control? Not to the point that everybody is snooping on anybody
but to the extant that everybody can vote.

I hope a new form of self-government could emerge for the idea and the
opportunities of p2p networks. Let the participants of the p2p network
decide. Off-list I heard the opinion that this could lead to a 'tyranny
of the majority.' On the project's web site one can read that "GNUnet is
supposed to be an anarchistic network ..."

Anarchy, though, is self-destructive, e.g. it favors merely the most
aggressive in the crowd. A network build on anarchy is therefore
unsustainable even if one provides that "... the only limitation for
peers is that they must contribute enough back to the network such that
their resource consumption does not have a significant impact on other
users" (https://gnunet.org/philosophy).

Why not allowing self-government in a non-trivial way? The people using
the net could give themselves means to make rules and means to judge
about them and means to enforce them. With today's ideas this could be
done without 'tyranny of the majority' and without favoring the most
aggressive in the crowd.


Best greetings,
Jan



On 10/04/2016 12:26 PM, Stefan Huchler wrote:
> Dear Jan,
> 
> I am no representive of the GNUnet Project, but the whole point of
> System of this is to shild the users from goverments and companies to
> spy on the activities of the users.
> 
> If you give anybody the power of a backdoor or something similar to
> search for unwanted activities, you cant limit it to "good" causes.
> 
> So if you built in a spy system or anything that makes it possible to
> find a child rapist as example, you give the same entity lets say a
> goverment also the tool to go after people with different political
> views.
> 
> And as bad it is that such criminals do their thing, the alternative to
> not give such tools out, would be the end of free press and therefor
> democracy at all.
> 
> So in this sence, such technologies are important and you have to live
> with the knowledge that bad people use them for bad stuff, too.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Again thats a private statement from me, I am not related to the GNUnet
> project other than reading their Mailinglist.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Stefan Huchler
> 
> Jan Eichstaedt  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 > descriptions of very bad people>?'
>>
>> I also had some conversation about this off-list (with people I only
>> will disclose if they allow) of which the following is an attempt to
>> summarize the current status of the question.
>>
>> 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 

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Stefan Huchler]

Dear Jan,

I am no representive of the GNUnet Project, but the whole point of
System of this is to shild the users from goverments and companies to
spy on the activities of the users.

If you give anybody the power of a backdoor or something similar to
search for unwanted activities, you cant limit it to "good" causes.

So if you built in a spy system or anything that makes it possible to
find a child rapist as example, you give the same entity lets say a
goverment also the tool to go after people with different political
views.

And as bad it is that such criminals do their thing, the alternative to
not give such tools out, would be the end of free press and therefor
democracy at all.

So in this sence, such technologies are important and you have to live
with the knowledge that bad people use them for bad stuff, too.

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.

Again thats a private statement from me, I am not related to the GNUnet
project other than reading their Mailinglist.

Best Regards

Stefan Huchler

Jan Eichstaedt  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  descriptions of very bad people>?'
>
> I also had some conversation about this off-list (with people I only
> will disclose if they allow) of which the following is an attempt to
> summarize the current status of the question.
>
> 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)?
>
> The Answer,
>
> or the attempts on it so far, I leave out, for now, because I would like
> to know what people in the project are thinking. The outcome should be
> an answer in the FAQ.
>
>
> Best,
> Jan


___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

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 ?'

I also had some conversation about this off-list (with people I only
will disclose if they allow) of which the following is an attempt to
summarize the current status of the question.

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)?

The Answer,

or the attempts on it so far, I leave out, for now, because I would like
to know what people in the project are thinking. The outcome should be
an answer in the FAQ.


Best,
Jan


___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

Dear GNUnet Project:

I dearly hope that you don't mind when come back to my below questions.
I hope that you can see that they are very basic, i.e. necessary to
answer for anybody to understand the nature of GNUnet. While asking "How
is GNUnet not the next Silk Road?" might seem harsh, this questions
needs to be addressed, all the more.

Imagine the GNUnet Project could win over people who care doing good
deeds without allowing inhumane deeds. You ask people to help with your
project. Isn't helping inherently trying to do good? Therefore, my
question is fundamental.

I am thinking about a network that does good without allowing inhumane
deeds for a long time now. That's why I would like to know what people
in your project are thinking about it. So please let me know.


Best,
Jan



On 09/22/2016 02:10 PM, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
> Hello GNUnet Project:
> 
> On the one hand I find your project admirable and would like to help. On
> the other hand I wonder whether you have any measures in place to
> safeguard against abuse of GNUnet. This keeps me from actually helping
> GNUnet. Your philosophy (https://gnunet.org/philosophy) appears to me as
> if you are not inclined to do anything about abuse.
> 
> What prevents GNUnet from turning into the next Silk Road (selling
> drugs, weapons, murderers via Tor)?
> 
> Is this worth a discussion from your point of view? If so then you have
> had this discussion long ago, I suppose. Could you please point me to
> information about this?
> 
> 
> Best,
> Jan
> 
> 


-- 
PD Dr. Jan Eichstaedt
Reston, VA 20191, 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

Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Christian Grothoff]

Dear Jan,

The kinds of abuse you are concerned about seem to all be of a
commercial nature, and thus have less to do with the P2P overlay
network, but with the payment system.  After all, who'd pay for those
kinds of services on Silk Road with their credit card?

For GNUnet, the payment system we want to see is GNU Taler
(https://taler.net/), which offers one-sided anonymity: the buyer is
anonymous, but the seller is not.  As the state can easily identify the
merchants and perform an audit to obtain the (digitally signed) contract
between merchant and customer, the Taler payment system should not work
for sustained illegal activities.

I should point out that there are other forms of abuse that I am
concerned about and for which we have some plans (see in particular
https://gnunet.org/p4t).


Happy hacking,

Christian


On 09/22/2016 08:10 PM, Jan Eichstaedt wrote:
> Hello GNUnet Project:
> 
> On the one hand I find your project admirable and would like to help. On
> the other hand I wonder whether you have any measures in place to
> safeguard against abuse of GNUnet. This keeps me from actually helping
> GNUnet. Your philosophy (https://gnunet.org/philosophy) appears to me as
> if you are not inclined to do anything about abuse.
> 
> What prevents GNUnet from turning into the next Silk Road (selling
> drugs, weapons, murderers via Tor)?
> 
> Is this worth a discussion from your point of view? If so then you have
> had this discussion long ago, I suppose. Could you please point me to
> information about this?
> 
> 
> Best,
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Help-gnunet mailing list
> Help-gnunet@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
> 


0xE29FC3CC.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Help-gnunet mailing list
Help-gnunet@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet