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

[ng0]

Hello,

sorry for top posting, I really see no way to split this up.
I am not employed by inria and I am not working on the codebase but I am
one of the volunteers working on/around GNUnet. So technically I do not
speak on behalf of the GNUnet Project (I think you mean someone employed
by iniria with this or the current project maintainer).
It's possible I derailed myself in terrible ways with the reply below,
so if anything is unclear reply here or offlist.


When you read this thread and the answers so far, I'd say with the
technical limitations of GNUnet in this regard the practical application
of such basic democracy can only happen in the applications users will
see in the end. Applications such as Secushare, Happyhydro and others
(Happyhydro at this moment only plans to integrate GNUnet, they will get
in touch sooner or later). Even then GNUnet might limit how much of or
how easily the discussed ideas might be applied by the applications.

The following is even more my personal opinion and point of view:
I initially found GNUnet in my very long search for the network I failed
to create in a reasonable secure way, a network which will enable people
in oppressive regimes to communicate, for activists to communicate in a
safe way. Later I added additional goals: a network where an application
can apply the safer-space and also to create an application / plugin of
an application which creates an lgbtiq (and other inclusions) friendly
date- and/or friendfinder network. Additionally to solve my frustration
as a musician: something (or rather multiple somethings) to bring means
of distribution, trade/sale/gifting, communication, web
presence/profile, event calendars/booking, search of musicians for your
band/project or other artists to collaborate with (not limited to music
necessarily but also other artists).
And then I got distracted by doing package and system creation.. But the
motivation of my original goals is a 'power to the people' one.

>> 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>?'

My counterquestion would be: Do current corporate and free networks
prevent this? You can see twitter enabling white surpremacy,
racists. The federated social network diaspora suffers from equal
problems. But at the same time they enable the communication of other
groups which depending on whoever writes the law could get in much
trouble for even communicating about it (pro-choice in poland,
anarchists in netherlands, etc).
Can technology on its own solve a social problem by blocking the talk
about it or applying other ways to prevent exchange of any information
which is not desired by international/national laws?
I believe this is not possible, it has to be a combination of social and
technological approaches.
While technology is useful to solve certain problems, organize and
unite, it also amplifies the "bad" people however you classify such and
whatever they are for you. How useful will it be when certain
discussions disappear into the underground where its more difficult to
have a discussion between opposing points of view with the chance of
a third uninvolved group of people learning from the outcome of this?
I think the outcome of the discussion would be a useful addition to an
FAQ, but I also think it should point out the limitations of the
situation, that this problem needs to be challenged continuously in ways
outside of technology.


Because I've stated one group of "bad" for me before, I give one part of
selfdescription/position of myself which is already known to those who
collect such information because of exchange with others: My point of
view/origin comes from my experiences as what could be roughly described
as a genderqueer anarcho-syndicalist person. This does not explain the
above described points, but it gives some indication why 'power to
people' is an important factor for me.


-- ng0

Jan Eichstaedt <address@hidden> writes:

> Dear Lluís,
>
> Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. You reinforce my plea for
> an answer on behalf to the GNUnet Project.
>
> Your point is well received with me. Perhaps the GNUnet Project would
> prefer to have all the talk about a self-government in another email
> list. After all, self-government is not a likely part of the GNUnet
> Project's answer to my initial question.
>
> Just let me state one more thing about my idea of a self-government.
> Ideally it might help to empower and emancipate "the weak" by by uniting
> them.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Jan
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2016 06:56 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
>> 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