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 <address@hidden> 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 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
> address@hidden
> 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