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 <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 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 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.

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.

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.

Best Regards,
Ryan