Governments, legislation, and jurisdictions channel cold, hard force.
Likelihood is something you take into account even when you have to deal with a crocodile.
Reason is what lets a human win, when fighting a crocodile.
What seems to be “on the table” is the possibility of forcing node operators to make data disappear. This should be mathematically impossible, and formally proven to be so.
If you want to talk about cold, hard force, node operators could easily be forced to make data disappear by killing everybody operating a node and physically destroying their computers. I don’t know what formal proof you would expect to prevent that. The only reason it wouldn’t happen would be that the people wielding force didn’t want to expend political capital, or didn’t want the collateral damage from taking the entire network down as opposed to taking their specific target content down, or perhaps even had moral qualms.
These are real things that actually affect the physical world, and if you try to ignore them you will make actually false predictions about physical events, including the use of force.
 I had to add this on edit because I can’t resist a good line… personal problem…
I don’t think so, but there are more issues now and I personally feel we need to stick to the vision. This is a huge topic that must not and will not affect the launch (I want the team working on the stability of any data right now) but again it’s one we must discuss/debate etc. Not on political or even ethical grounds but purely to know what the network (not maidsafe) will face and how best to handle it.
That’s NOT on the table.
Something that is, is the ability of node operators to opt into a mechanism of censorship of some data. Doing that in any way other than voluntary will fail, doing that unilaterally will kill the node.
What we really need to be here is smart. Not jump the gun or knee jerk into some diametrically opposing views. That is a debate with no end.
Let’s look deeply at the issues, think of the consequences and hold that up against the vision of Safe. It’s got to be smart though.
Many things up in the air. If you are a node operator do you know what you hold? Can you find out? is that easy? If it’s bad can you filter it? Should you?
So many questions and there will be very clever answers.
This is not big brother shouting and us quivering in fear.
It’s all a ride, just a ride
Nobody can take a vision out of our heads, people can make it hard, we can play cat and mouse, but we don’t need to. We just need to be focused determined and act in a way to honour that vision. Humanity needs Safe, I believe that. What it does not need is any of us biased one way or the other. If it’s raining, put on the wipers! We need to deal with all and any storms here and there is a storm right now and we need to deal with it.
Let’s not slow launch though. What we have is great and we need to move on and this convo must be in parallel and not on the critical path.
I hope David doesn’t see it that way or the community, is more like it for me personally. Not just because I don’t disagree with the discussion so far but because likely for this to exist in the real world and be built by a company, this will always crop up. Otherwise, SN is just another dark net and yes it could still rise above that much like Bitcoin did but this project doesn’t have pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, it has Maidsafe employees who are real identities in a real world with responsibilities.
Not to say Bitcoin is irresponsible but that there was no one to answer to being pseudonymous and under the radar. If this project had cropped up in the same way at a time before the public awareness of Bitcoin or broader crypto then it would have likely been backed by libertarians in the same way Bitcoin did and stood a chance at being the ‘pure’ vision.
Let’s not go make a SN PV (pure vision) or SN DV (David’s vision) just because some here disagree.
I’m glad we are here to keep things in check but David is too and I don’t think Jim or Heather whom have to deal with reality here have any disagreements about the SN fundamentals. They actively defend them as much as I’ve seen.
To be honest, I believed in this project many years ago, as a project that can save user data, no matter what kind of data it is, and no matter what other circumstances. All this talk about “if one copy of a chunk is lost, another one will be created immediately” or that “slow computers will store backup copies of chunks in case of data loss” now seem to be nonsense, because it turns out , the network architecture suggests the possibility of deleting all copies of chunks at once if their hashes are in some kind of black list (in which, as noted earlier, any data can be). In this case, we can no longer say that the network is protected from censorship, and that the data is safe (security means not only protecting data from getting to unauthorized persons, but also protecting data from being deleted without the consent of the owner). Thus, the project is now rather disappointing than inspiring.
I would like to understand the value of this project in terms of the possibility of creating a fork, where the data will really be protected. How far will the project architecture need to be changed to protect data from forced deletion? Personally, it seems to me necessary to add a reputation parameter for the data keeper. If the data keeper deletes copies of chunks, his reputation is reduced. And when the user uploads data to the network, the user should be able to set the file protection parameter from the risk of deletion. I’m wondering if it’s possible to create a fork based on this idea as it’s not obvious to me. If not, what other options are there? Many people in the thread expressed the opinion that a fork will be created that will solve the problem of censorship. But can you imagine how exactly it should work? Please answer those who have thoughts on this matter.
I am not digging at anyone, every perspective is coming from what different people believe is best.
I am learning from this and the Musk thread that even in a community of like minded people there is much disagreement.
To me this seems really dangerous. If a node operator CAN find out what is held then political pressures can crush the network. I wouldn’t feel safe operating a node if I could know what’s being stored. The legal liability is unlimited regardless of any other mechanisms in place.
This is already a thing. If a node deletes or alters data it is demoted (or maybe even kicked out? I don’t know specifically). regardless, they can start at the bottom, but hard to get in as the network only adds nodes as needed, so if you mess up you lose out.
Is is much easier than you may think. Ban the app from GooglePlay/AppleStore/MicrosoftStore and that’s it for 99% of population. Mainstream society won’t do anything if you proclaim the rest terrorists and start making their lives miserable. (China has many horrible examples if you want.)
It is harder to do globally than in one country, but don’t underestimate power of governments and their agencies. They don’t need technical only solution, they have more options.
That is easy, as a node operator I am paid to store binary blobs and I want to be able to proof I have no way knowing what is inside.
Semantics perhaps, but I don’t consider that a ban as it’s just a company-level decision. I was thinking of a government ban that could affect the whole of the Internet. Any platform can do such, but the software is still available somewhere.
What I was thinking of here (specifically) was that governments could force github to remove the code - but even then the code could be shared via Tor hidden service and torrents in the worst case scenario.
Yes, China has done a lot in terms of censorship, but even then, software can still be obtained.
Once the Safe Network is launched, it itself becomes a repository for software as well. Getting it from there is the trick, but there are ways that could be achieved as well by including code to access the network in the code of other existing apps.
If so, then it turns out that there is an incentive in the network not to delete copies of chunks whose hashes are on the blacklists. However, the persistence of the data is still in question, since copies of the chunks are distributed randomly over the nodes. And it turns out that there is no guarantee of data safety, it remains a matter of luck: if the user is lucky, one of the copies of each chunk will be placed on a node that is not prone to data censorship, if the user is unlucky, and at least one chunk turned out to be placed exclusively on censoring nodes , then the file will never be built again. If the user could host data on the best nodes for an additional fee, this could be a solution. But I cannot yet imagine the details of this solution. Correct me if you think I’m wrong about something.
Yes, currently, but that would have to change if there were some mechanism to allow nodes to ban data. Perhaps all the scanning would be on upload and the upload would be rejected in the first case by the elder node. In such a manner all data that get’s stored would be acceptable … but then the problem arises of a change in the status of certain data that’s already been stored … Perhaps that data would be purged during churn, IDK. All of this adds to the engineered complexity of Safe Network I reckon.
I didn’t think you were fwiw but rather addressing my hopes that a rift either internally or externally does not come from this as I see it as basically unavoidable to address at this time and place. The current environment has too many eyes and roadblocks to avoid it.
Whether someone agrees politically or ethically, to me again, it’s unavoidable and it’s a company making this groundbreaking product.
This one will take us all to think carefully and understand technical limitations of such censorship. They are so simple to get around and the “problem” still exists. I am hopeful if we do something it’s valuable and not an appeasement we know does not work.
Step 1 so far has been interesting. I love to see the developing idea of freedom, what that means I don’t quite know myself
Thanks, @JimCollinson, @dirvine, et al for engaging and grappling with the nuts and bolts of not just the technology but the social/political realities involved in bringing the network into existence. It’s not simply a technical matter by any means.
We’ve discussed much of this over the years at great length (re child porn, etc.) and the general wash has been that a neutral, autonomous, anonymous system of data storage and retrieval for all people is the key feature of the network. Any compromise toward censorship at the network-wide level is generally abhorrent to the vision of SAFE.
That said, these topics must be considered thoroughly in light of real world conditions which might stop or hinder the network even coming into existence, i.e., governments and other interests which hold sway. That includes the not-insignificant matter of PR and public support, especially in light of the fact that governments and large corps, banks, etc., hold power that the existence of SAFE would directly and indirectly threaten, as do cryptocurrencies and decentralized networks generally. So a new hashing out of all this is appropriate in light of organizing the Foundation.
Technology of itself can never be a savior. Its use can always be corrupted and, as long as there are imperfect and\or evil beings involved, it will be to some degree. The key is to make the base level of the tech as uncompromisable as possible and sort the rest at the application/user layer, empowering users both individually and collectively.
I haven’t seen any address to this point as yet, though I could have missed it in the volume of the thread: The ideal of node functioning is for it to operate with zero involvement from the individual node owner, except to ensure that the storage, processing and connectivity resources are provide and as stable as possible. Any other duties or even options for a node owner open a whole can of worms that, IMHO, break the system and open disruption, sabotage, covert control and corruption vectors.
Things are seriously coming to a head in the world and will, by the time the network is ready to launch, either open or close the door on the possibility of actually launching the network. That ability is truly in question, depending on how things wash out in the not-too-distant future. I personally have faith that it will break to the good rather than the bad.
The recent DAVOS meeting only re-enforces the direction that the globalist-governance class wants to head, and in fact is already marching towards, and that is total visibility / control of the world population’s digital footprint, activity, and behavior. The SN is a direct threat to that end goal. Even if SN did launch without censorship controls in place, it would quickly be targeted and forced to apply such controls or risk TBD penalties. And yes, I do believe in providence…
(did not read all answers yet)
Consensus have a problem, that voters should be anonymous to be able to tell what they actually think and not be hunted down afterwards.
At the same time, when voters are not identifiable, it is hard to prove that vote is not faked.
Maybe cryptography can give solution, I’m not sure.
I can see an imperfect semi censored version of safenetwork been released by David and co. Better that than nothing. The network will then eventually be forked many times and just as with Bitcoin the market will decide the winner.
We must let the market and competition decide imo
Don’t be afraid of an imperfect version been released to prove the technology.
Forget CP. Let’s say a person has the access codes to all the nukes in the Russian arsenal, and that he can prove it. Let’s say he’s known to be mentally unstable and/or so religious that he doesn’t care if he lives or dies. He thinks he’ll go to heaven anyway. Let’s say he demands the removal of a sinful picture from the network, or he will blow up the world. Do you think consensus could be reached to remove just this one picture and possibly save the world? Do you think further demands might follow?
Sure, a crazy person in such a position could choose to blow up the world anyway, without making any demands first. But the possibility of having demands met could certainly inspire such a person to try - something he would not do, if he knew such a removal would be impossible regardless of any consensus.