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

[Matthias Wachs]

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.

> 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? 

According to your idea of man, the strong ones are evil will try to rule over
the weak ones and therefore a hierarchy will develop having a 'tyranny of the
majority' controlled by a an 'oligarchy of strong' as a consequence...

Cheers!

> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
-- 
Dr. rer. nat. Matthias Wachs
Researcher

Technical University of Munich
Department of Informatics
Chair of Network Architectures and Services

Boltzmannstr. 3 
85748 Garching, Germany

Tel. + 49 89 289 18037
Fax + 49 89 289 18030

address@hidden
https://net.in.tum.de/members/wachs/

OpenPGP fingerprint 4594 6915 BA9B 3886 A7A5  91E0 271E D86D 6F53 AD12

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part