Isn't safe network made by Maidsafe that is from EU? Does that mean that it has to obey article 13-14?

I am puzzled that the project is made by a company in EU, will the company be at fault for allowing aa network that is uncensored?

:sweat_smile: Not if they launch after BREXIT


edit: I voted remain. If they do manage to leave the EU… and if it somehow benefits SAFENetwork, that would offer some comfort.

1 Like

It’s possible. But laws take a long time to bed in. For example, although it only came out last year, GDPR was mostly written pre-blockchain and has few provisions to deal with decentralisation. @Zoki brexit will make no difference at all.

1 Like

I was also partly having a josh about the launch date. I just dont see brexit happening.

The safe network itself isn’t one person, and it isn’t located in the EU. Only the team is. While technically it’s possible to prosecute the company for coding and creating the safe network, there is a precedence in law to not punish companies for behavior of their customers/users. Internet service providers are not punished when a customer engages in piracy; the customer is. A car manufacturer is not punished for reckless driving; the driver is.

Article 13 is a step in the wrong direction surely, but it still applies to companies that has control over users submission. The key here is not the maidsafe company, but rather is the network is sufficiently decentralized? If no one controls the network, who are you going to punish? There are not many countries currently that will prosecute people for something which they have no control over.

If you’re running a Tor node you’re probably routing child pornography and drug market trades all day everyday, but you can’t see the traffic, and have no control over it, thus plausible deniability. The same principle should apply here.

Despite Tor buzzing with criminal activity I have yet to hear of any Tor developer’s getting sentenced for publishing code, nor that anyone thinks this will change after Article 13.

If anything, Article 13 is a huge incentive for people to move away from the regulated and slowly dying internet to safe net, because safe net is what internet intended to be: Free, decentralized and open to everyone.

If maidsafe fails at creating a sufficiently decentralized network, and it can be argued that they have control over the network, this is a whole different matter. If you control a network such as this, you will end up with multiple life sentences in US. This is not the plan of maidsafe.

All this being said, laws will get tougher and things may change for the worse. But I believe technology will develop faster than the regulators, so by the time they think about making safe net participation illegal, it will be too late. Just like with bitcoin. The key here is to not ask for permission, but simple do it. By the time regulators realize the power of safe net, it might already become too mainstream to stop it.


GDPR, primarily deals with organisations collecting, holding and processing personal data.

MaidSafe, via launching the Safe Network, will do none of these things, and neither will the Network itself really.

The Network is of course autonomous, and the data stored by individual vaults all over the world. It’s held in vaults in such a way that it no-longer can be considered personal data, even under the letter of the law of GDPR, so vault users (farmers) contributing to the network won’t be bound by GDPR either.

So the SAFE Network in many ways is the answer to the question that GDPR is asking.

It’ll be a godsend for many and developers too, who will be able to comply with GDPR by building their apps on SAFE, maintaining all the functionality (and then some!) of their apps, yet not touching personal data at all.


How about article 13 etc which are copyright related brought in separately from GDPR.

Ah, of the Copyright directive? I’d need to dig into that some more, I’m not as familiar with it as GDPR.

But, I guess if the publisher of the content is identifiable, then I suppose they could be liable. It’d be the publisher’s decision to identify themselves though, and it’d be up to publishers to obey the laws of their jurisdiction — it’s a decision for them.

I’m not sure if an autonomous network could be liable for copyright infringement, as it is not a legal person, and therefore couldn’t enter into a licensing agreement either. I’d image it’d be no more liable than a fibre optic cable, or a linux kernel.



what I say is that maidsafe made this autonomous network and they might be asked to update it so it doesnt go against copyright laws

They can ask :wink: They can ask us to jump the moon as well, does not mean we can.
Seriously though that is exactly the time maidsafe is not a core contributor and none of our code updates should be accepted. That is a longer story though as governance is still up in the air (as it should be at this time).