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 <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

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