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

[Jan Eichstaedt]

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.


Thank you for your thoughts,
Jan



On 10/08/2016 04:46 PM, Stefan Huchler wrote:
> Jan Eichstaedt <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Hi Again,
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> You concentrate on the desition making process, which of course is
> important, but this is more or less a meta discussion, we had here the
> pirateparty that critisised our political system and desition taking, we
> also have advocates for direct democracy I am one of them, but that all
> is on a different level and not that important, if it means you fight
> over the process as long till nobody votes for you anymore.
> 
> Whatever again thats a seperate discussion, at least the normal politic
> has clearly some tools to enforce their desitions, they have people that
> control others and take them in custody or in extreme cases shoot them
> etc.
> 
> What do we have here? 1. the rules from the goverments still apply to
> Gnunet, the goverment may have some problems mass survalence it and find
> the rulebreakers, but again there are ways to get that people to, like
> what we here call the "bundestrojaner" or keyloggers etc.
> 
> So Gnunet is no room without a law, the normal laws apply to it, and get
> to some extend enforced of course, and yes many small crimes cannot be
> stopped in a very economic way, so the gain/damage comparsion will most
> likely stop the goverments to invest it.
> 
> But as we seen with Silkroad if people do real extreme bad stuff like
> order kills or stuff like that, the goverments find ways to get that
> people. There are many ways like Honeypots, etc.
> 
> But we have to accept some crimes will not get found, that is what
> happens in real live too, strangers get driven to forests raped killed
> and the murder never gets resolved, but do we then want a camera in
> every car that records the people 24/7? I bet not.
> 
> So if we have then a additional ruling that is not identical with the
> state rulings, which is from a democratic standpoint problematic.
> 
> Also you suggest a wordwide ruling, that would be horrible, americans as
> example having big problems with sex, so they dont want to see Nipples
> the world ends when nipples are seen, we see that on youtube, they
> enforce this american laws in other countries where its absolutly legal,
> which sucks.
> 
> But to get to my major point, lets say we voted somehow and got really
> great rules, we all like, what is the next step? So either persons or
> algorythms controll the bits and bytes flying around, or do you only
> want a non binding agreement without any control?
> 
> So the people aproach very problematic, blackmailing, privacy and they
> cant look over all stuff.
> 
> The algorythm aproach, google does that with copyright, its horrible,
> people get falsly banned, its very quick to get banned but a extremly
> difficult process to get whitelisted if they banned you without a
> reason.
> 
> Also stuff gets banned that make no sense somewhere in the background a
> radio plays some stupid song it gets banned.
> 
> Also undemocratic groups that were around since before hitler ruled in
> germany the gema can somehow dictate others their rules, because by
> default every music is automaticly theirs if somebody does not refuse.
> 
> If you create some control-backdoor structures even if it meant for
> noble reasons, I guartee you that this people find a way to enforce
> their evil goals over it.
> 
> We have a Oligarchy at the moment, so to level that out we dont need a
> small space that is democracy we need a small space that is at least a
> bit anarchistic, to bypass our Oligarchies.
> 
> 
> Also I find it strange, Opensource is a Evolutionary System of
> Dictatorships, the one that create the code, are the Dictators, the way
> to negate this dictatorship, where people that use much proprietary
> software have no protection at all, is the ability to fork.
> 
> So lets say we now make our "perfect" system that stopps all that is at
> the moment bad in the views of the mass, and has backdoors or stuff like
> that that stopps the 100% uncontrolled 1 to 1 communication, whats the
> whole point of the software. The next day you see a port from it, that
> guarantees this anonym and protected communications.
> 
> And then it gets really dangerous, lets say at one day this system like
> many if not all goverments and other systems get corrupted, they can
> then enforce bad rules there and then say if people use the other
> system, they must be evils/criminals else they would not use it.
> 
> And of course Edward Snowden is in the USA legal system with very old
> rules a criminal that most likely would get the death penelty, but most
> people in the world want this criminal act happen, because its for the
> greater good.
> 
> 
> 
>> A lot would need to be specified before one can actually tell whether
>> this might work. I'm not the one to specify this alone. Wouldn't it be
>> better to give way that such a grassroots approach to self-government
>> can be developed?
> 
> But if you refuse to give concrete specifications, its hard to imagine
> how such things could happen without beeing horrible.
> 
> I cant imagine that. Again GnuNet IS NO Anarchy, the laws of the country
> you live in apply to all what you do over Gnunet, too.
> 
> I hear the same hear about the internet all the time "das internet ist
> ein Rechtsfreier raum", "the internet doesnt have legal rules", its just
> not true.
> 
> 
> Sorry if my tone might be harsh, I have no problem with you, I just dont
> see how that could happen and not completly kill this project.
> 
> greetings
> 
> 
> Stefan
> 
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Help-gnunet mailing list
>>>> address@hidden
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Help-gnunet mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-gnunet mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
>