Is the SAFEbrowser and network anonymous?


#41

maybe it is a bit similar to , say, a bus transportation company. They make profit by carrying people. Sometimes, they may carry criminals from one point to another, without knowledge about that fact. I suppose most jurisdictions would not say the bus company is guilty. Maybe farfetched ,too :slight_smile:

EDIT : or like @neo says, if I use that same bus and pay for my ticket, I am not guilty either of helping the bad guys who travel in the same bus, despite my money contributes to it.


#42

Absolutely.
Throughout history it has been considered criminal to be Jewish, homosexual, to wear glasses, to fly on broomsticks and to own fax machines. And this is why we need Safenet. There is no telling what will be considered criminal by the powers tomorrow.


#43

Nice (fitting name) analogy. Pretty spot on for the most part I think. Thanks for clearing things up a little. (also @neo)

Still, something keeps bothering me…but I can’t really wrap my head around it. At least not in English. Still, let me try, bear with me:

It’s something like fencing stolen goods. You’re accountable for fencing when you could’ve assumed on beforehand that the goods you’re selling were stolen.

In the case of SAFE, a part of your diskspace might or might not be used for harboring illegal activities. At the very least, as a user, I can assume that there’s a possible chance that I’m actually doing just that. Does that make me an accomplice to a crime by default? I don’t know. Sure, the chance of me (a normal user) actually getting convicted are pretty slim, since the government still has to prove that I actually did co-host these, for instance, illegal websites. And if all goes well with SAFE, proving this should be (almost) impossible. But still, I think they can hold you accountable to some degree, since users of SAFE don’t have to agree to any ‘terms of use’ of other users’s computers. To the best of my knowledge, when you provide a service, any service whatsoever (AWS?), and get paid for it, (in Safecoin for instance) you have to provide the user of the service with some sort of ‘terms of use’. If not, as the provider, you can be held responsible to some degree. And with SAFE, we’re all providers…

I don’t really know where I’m going with this. Am I making sense at all? Probably not, maybe I’m just seeing ghosts…:sweat_smile:


#44

There is a huge topic on this already. Look up topics with “illegal”

To answer your question, you did yourself.

None can know what is stored on their disk.

The ISP cannot be charged for letting data packets flow through there switches/network that contain illegal files/goods/images etc.

The courier company cannot be held responsible for transporting and delivering illegal material

The bus company cannot be held responsible for taking a thief across town, and he even have the loot in his bag

Dropbox is not held responsible for hosting/storing illegal images. AND Dropbox know there is illegal material on the servers somewhere. They just don’t know where and not held responsible because it is unreasonable for them to act as policemen and breach everyone’s privacy in order to find it.

Since SAFE is totally encrypted we don’t know what is being stored on our vaults and are not expected to be able to know. So the same as anything else that provides a generalised service the people operating the service are not responsible for a user of the service breaking the law.

BUT if we were to censor the service then we are held responsible for what we allow through. The same for the ISP, courier or other service provider if they actively censored the items “carried” by the service.

The newpaper or similar is held responsible for what they publish because they are the ones who publish it. All those other service providers are different because they do not “publish” anything. Now SAFEsite operators might be different since they can be considered publishers, BUT SAFE is not responsible for those safesite publishers.

See the difference?