Negative media perception countermeasures. Are we ready?

SAFE is beautiful but scary tech. This holds especially true to governments that work diligently to suppress and control its citizens. If extreme measures to cripple SAFE were considered, it seems a registry would be one of those. Forcing all who host content on the internet to register their IP address in an attempt to block access to SAFE. This would effectively create a whitelist that would cause any connection to any non-whitlisted IP to fail. Is there an easy way around this? Is it even a problem.

SAFE is positioned to cause EXTREME disruption to financial and government intistutions. The scary content on this network will rally swarms of people to pressure governments to act. The media will be on fire. This is no bittorrent or Tor we’re talking about. This is basically pure unaccountable anarchy. The likes of which we have never seen. I respect the ideals of this community and the Maidsafe team, but the worlds’ governments will try to figuratively nuke this network into oblivion. Goin as far as to shrink the internet if need be. Most wont even notice. That scares the turd out of me.

@sarahpentland , any developing strategies for perception control up your sleeve? Beta should be the target. A fully live SAFE network will have already stirred the pot before its qualified.


What really scares me is NOT having the maidsafe network yet. Hurry and get it out quickly, please!


We are in a new age, where “perception control” can easily backfire. People can perceive this product however they want to, and it will be impossible to control. Maidsafe will not be controlling anything except their own behavior. Let our enemies try to use propaganda (or “marketing” if you prefer) we will not be the ones doing it.

Of course I don’t speak for maidsafe, but if I were in charge, that’s how I would do it.


From my understanding, the iP address wont matter because everything will be encrypted and broken into pieces before they leave the computer. These pieces of encrypted data will not be identifiable… I am sure someone here can validate my response (or correct) and even provide more details


Would it be possible to filter out traffic that uses SAFE protocols?

1 Like

I probably agree with this, but on the other hand SAFE is also very well positionned to bring these institutions great benefit, in fulfilling their storage, redundancy, secrecy and secure communications needs.
They would probably be early adopters, just like they have been for radio waves and satellite when these appeared , and actually push for Safe development. Though their public stance about this may look different…


It would definitely nice for there to be apps with noble purpose for SAFE advocates to point to, when our detractors point at apps that are perhaps less noble.

We know there will be gambling, file-sharing, porn, and dark markets. We also know there will be apps such as whistle blowing apps to root out corruption, communication apps to allow repressed people to organize, social media apps to allow keeping in touch with family/friends without BigCo harvesting user data, HIPAA compliant medical records storage and transmission apps, etc.

It would be outstanding if we had more of the later and fewer of the former as we launched the network, to rob the doomsayers of some of their power.


Let me adjust the wording. Is “minimizing outcry” more appropriate. By promoting the good over the obvious bad, we can redirect fear into a mindset of benefit and necessity. That is my goal.

Someone has to be connected to via IP address before they can be passed over to SAFE. If this bootstrap IP is not whitelisted it could mean the user cannot reach the network. Access is denied.

Traffic for the SAFE network is designed to look like any other traffic. In that it does not give away any specifics. This should be difficult if not impossible. Whitelisting is the only way for large entities to stop it and is my fear. How do we deafeat that?

SAFE is open source. Unrestricted use unless it is used in a way that the very network alone or its libraries are generating profit. This means they can create their own internal network that serves their own purpose while restricting the public use of a similar implentation. The SAFE network. They could even use their own modified version of SAFE without the anonymity protections of the true SAFE network and promote that to the world. The greater public will see this as an advantage and prefer the various percieved social benefits that come with it. SAFE will be buried or isolated to anarchists. This poses a problem IMO.

1 Like

Very good points, you are pointing to the fact that this is a way more complex issue than “governments will shut Safe down”.
The fact that the code is open will indeed allow anyone to deploy their own version, would they be the self called ‘good ones’ , or so called ‘bad ones’. One should keep in mind that this appreciation is essentially subjective.
Time and experimentation will discriminate between uses and orientations for this new technology : a new phase in forces balancing is emerging.

I believe we cant just wait. We need to be proactive in securing the future of an unrestricted global SAFE network. Less @dirvine 's vision and ours dies.

Imagine over 10 years of R&D and community effort just to enable them and restrict ourselves. My f***ing head would explode! :exploding_head: :rage:

1 Like

Nice timing…


Except a vault is not “Hosting” in any legal sense. Do you say your disk drive is hosting files for your computer. Or a NAS is hosting files. Or Dropbox is hosting your files. What dropbox is hosting is a website. You say they are storing your files. Vaults are not even doing that, just sending chunks when talking to another computer.

Only too late though. And it would require a world wide effort. The politicians will be using SAFE before they are lobbied by the corporations and spooks to ban it.

The benefits will be outweighing (in my opinion) the call to ban. It will be getting used too much by the time it really gets noticed. How long was bittorrent or similar was running before we heard the media heavyweights crying about it. Many years. And by the time they did cry about it it was too late.

By then SAFE will be benefiting the news media with whistle blowers insider stories and protecting sources. Politicians will be using it to send their private messages like our prime minister used wickr to secretly messages others when overthrowing the previous prime minister. Companies will be using it to keep corporate communications secret. And like Tor the spooks will use it.

Its just when the lobbyists call for safe to be banned will determine the response. The public will like always give the middle finger to typical banning attempts.

Not happening in the western world. The internet would be crawling (back to dial up response) by then. If they haven’t done this by now with the end to end encryption then they won’t do it with SAFE. End to end encryption is hosting by your (incorrect) definition of hosting. Each end is the source of information.

Whitelisting is an EXTREME measure for the internet. So many people now run their own servers for say email, gaming, end-2-end encryption, IP cameras at home, NAS at home, and 100 other types. Its in the millions. And SAFE is even less hosting than many of those.

To whitelist all those would destroy the internet as we know it. Only countries like North Korea can whitelist their internet. Even China which WANTS whitelist cannot do it because it would cripple their internet and the access to on-line shops in China.


SAFE will have grown grass roots style for too long before any government takes any action. (my estimation obviously) And by then it will be too late.

Whitelisting sounds plausible till you estimate the numbers. China who wants it cannot do it without crippling their internet and their online commerce to the world.


You whole response is weak. Worldwide effort can and will again occur. There has never been anything like SAFE in the digital work. Whitelisting is possible and workable in our current world. Your delusions of grass root nonsense doesn’t defeat tech so easily. Which is why I call for creativity when facing this inevitable adversary.

The internet so far has for most people become a tool for finance, social networking, and product consumption from the biggest players. I estimate over 85% of people would care less if small sites were left in the wake of government whitelisting.

Though, registration would mean that even small business entities would only need to apply and wait for acceptance into this whitelist. SAFE node operators on the SAFE net would likely not even consider this if such restrictions were enacted. :roll_eyes:

That was only a part of it.

Whitelisting the internet is impossible since it will stop being the internet. Millions of people will have to register their home IP camera monitoring and their home control/security systems that they can control from elsewhere.

The ability to stop SAFE was based on this whitelist ability. We know simply making it illegal to communicate over the internet will not work.

What you are suggesting governments will do is hugely enormous and really impossible unless we become dictatorships. Even China who wants to do what you claimed will be done cannot do it. How is the rest of world going to be able to do it???

poppycock, more than 15% of American households have IP cameras and/or home security systems that they access from elsewhere. There are more than 15% are bittorent people in addition and all those fit your definition. So no your claims are very weak too.

Every wifi controlled drone is a wifi access point (host), all the printers now manufactured by HP is a host. IoT devices will be either a device, host or both and the number will be in their billions.

Wow how long will registration of all those devices take and how long to be added to a worldwide whitelist. How long will my attempt to access a site take since they have to scan that billions long whitelist.

What of all the datacentres with their millions of VM instances all of which can he hosts. And the IP addresses are randomly allocated when the instance is created. So if a business needs extra instances for their commerce website to handle the holiday rush will have to wait months for registration to occur and being added longer still. Poppycock they will whitleist the internet.

Oh and if you think the web hosting is small then

There are over 1.5 billion websites on the world wide web today. Of these, less than 200 million are active. Total number of Websites - Internet Live Stats

And that is just web sites. None of the bittorrent or ip camera or home security or billions of IoT devices to appear in next few years.

History is a good indicator of what will happen and what you propose goes against history and what happens. Remember governments move very slowly and SAFE will grow so much faster.


trying to make the internet whitelisted only sound completely ludicrous to me Oo

doesn’t mean they won’t try … but i’d leave the country if they really do it and go wherever i’m free …


IOT devices could easily be proxied through whitelisted government services for tight control. If one deviates punishments occur that will deter future offences i’m sure. Is it unimagineable that these devices be only accessible if first nogotiated trough government servers? Doesn’t seem all that far fetched.

Drones work on a local network. The WWW is not needed to operate them.

Poppycock? From my understanding plants don’t have genitalia!!! :rofl:

Sorry. Like I said, I having an ethenol fueled gathering. Not trolling I promise. :v:

Just retarded by strict definition. :grin:

In what world? This will not and could not happen unless we become a dictatorship and they take full control of the internet. It is fantasy to think otherwise.

Increasingly not. For a simple example the parcel delivery drones. Hosting their position etc.

Ever heard of tururizm? Bush has lead the world with his idiocy and promoted the blind attack against anything remotely threatening. We don’t need a full dictatorship to have panic fueled restrictions.

No but you need the ability to control the uncontrollable. Whitelist the internet is fantasy without total control worldwide of people and companies. ie dictatorships. Oh and reduce hosts to mere thousands otherwise the internet will start crawling. I cite China as the real life example of the impossibility of whitelisting the internet even for one country. China wants to and even they cannot and they are worse tht any Bush