Network Abuse Protections


#1

So what are the suggestions to prevent abuse of the network for nefarious activity? I love the idea of Maidsafe, but I still feel like it will need some kind of user regulation in order to keep it tenable (and acceptable to governments)…

Would there be a ‘jury duty’ type responsibility for users? In order to maintain your account, users picked at random would need to read -short- evidence relating to the deletion of files/sites on the network, and then agree/disagree to the deletion. Group consensus in action?

Engaging the likes of police agencies and giving them the opportunity to fast track reporting of files/sites to make sure the network doesn’t become a criminal haven might be advantageous? On the flip side, Safe sites could be given ratings (and thus protection) by users to avoid false reporting by government/commercial groups.

I know the blue sky thinking is that the network would be completely free for anyone to do whatever they wanted… but in reality, should that be the case? We’ve had a few thousand years of history to prove at a fair percentage of people are utter shits…


New Members: Start Here!
#2

If you search the forums there is plenty of discussions on this.

Short Answer: NONE

To allow any sort of censorship on SAFE which is what this boils down to is to allow governments by use of might to censor the very people we want to be uncensored.

If you are to allow the peoples of the world to be free in expression and not censored then you have to accept that like our roads, water, electricity that the baddies of this world will also use those utilities and SAFE.

They currently use the (encrypted) internet and (stolen) phones for their bad activities so in one sense there is no difference for SAFE

I’d expect that search engines on SAFE will provide this service too. That is a “score” of the usefulness/“safety” of the site

People at random will not do this as can be evidence by any quick research. Who is going to take the time to do even a short amount without pay. Very few indeed.

But in any case to give this ability is to invite censorship of opposing views by those extreme view people who are more likely to try and shape information to their extreme view. What if some of those selected are actually the same person with different accounts, or someone who has 10,000 or 100,000 or more robotic accounts (for IoT devices) and they decide that xyz article they are asked to review is against their interest and the random gave them 3 places on the review panel and only one other person takes the time to review.

No this cannot work in a censorship resistant/free system

And censorship now does not stop them being that now, what makes you think censorship of SAFE will stop them being that way


#3

No, we’ve had a few thousand years of history to prove that governments are the ultimate utter shits!


#4

Well said…


#5

then agree/disagree to the deletion

People can agree or disagree on what they want, by design they can not modify, obfuscate or delete data that they don’t own on the network.

a fair percentage of people are utter shits…

We need to keep in mind that we are also probably utter shits in someone else’s mind, culture, interest , or time. This should never prevent us or anyone to express ideas.


#6

“Government” is just a term for a fairly arbitrary group of people who have the power to control other people. This varies through time and space. It could be “The Aristocracy”, “The Crown”, “The Church”, “The Elders”, “The Corporation”, “The Proletariat”, “The [Color] Race” - any “Chosen ones”. The question is, do we want a medium on which information cannot be controlled by any group of any size. I do.

Some people or groups of them will always be shits (in someone’s eyes). Any argument about the Safenet or the Internet could be used in regards to the telegraph. If I had lived when the telegraph was relevant, I would have wanted that to be impossible to control as well - by anybody. Despite Jessie James maybe using it to plan hold-ups, or the government using it to cover up whatever they wanted covered up at that time.


#7

It is leverage of control of information that allows the worst kind of “utter shit” to mess with billions of other people’s lives without proper accountability. We need protection from the biggest shits, not more ways to attack the little ones, we have plenty of them already.

If anything that you are suggesting were to happen this project would have no value at all. The second it is not 100% censor resistant is the second this project dies. The reason I am invested in SAFE is that it is the only realistic defence I have ever come across from an Orwellian future. We’re like the frog in boiling water, we haven’t noticed the temperature change (over the last decade) and we’re dangerously close to being boiled alive. SAFE could turn the hob off.


#8

This is exactly the kind of NIGHTMARE I’m trying to ESCAPE by using SAFE…


#9

Yep Ken, you have missed the point with this network here.

I can see your concern. There is a debate about illicit use, and as mentioned there are plenty of discussions about them.

But all what you propose utterly defeats the purpose of the network.

I don’t know if I should reiterate the ideas here or let that be kept in the other topics…

I think the simplest thing is to explain human IRL interaction. We take for granted that this kind of interaction should be possible to be 100% private. I think it violates the mental peace of any human being to imagine that you would never ever be able to have a private conversation with someone. So, this is what human beings want. It’s simple.
Now introduce technique, so that we can connect people over the entire globe, and just apply this.

The technique is there to help us communicate, regardless of physical distance (which seems like not a very futuristic ambition today, eh?).

SAFE will let people do that.

It is not supposed to be a tool for monitoring or hindering communication.

And for that reason, in the same way that we do not try to censor communication between private individuals in their IRL interactions, we will not do it in their online interactions.

I mean, SAFE network is just the medium, like the air between us that carries the sound waves of our voices. In the same way that we do not put abuse-detection tools in the air, we do not put it in the network that extends this medium.


#10

I haven’t missed the point of the network, my concern is that it will be painted by the media as a safe haven for paedophiles and criminals. They won’t focus on the 99% positive use of the network, I just think there needs to be a way to prevent that otherwise it will be easy to discourage the general public from using the network.

I do accept that I’m not on the same page though, I don’t think a magical utopian internet world with no rules will necessarily succeed.


#11

So exactly the way the Internet was painted when it first became a mass market technology. Doesn’t every technology have a negative side, one that can be used by a minority for unhealthy ends? Fire can cook your meals and keep you warm, but also burn down your neighbours house. Cars kill millions of people every year. That didn’t stop either of these technologies from achieving mass adoption.

SAFE will succeed if/because it will do something no other technology has been able to do so far - secure people’s data on the Internet, not because some people see it as “a magical utopian internet world”.


#12

I know what you are saying, and today propaganda, smearing campaigns and FUD can be spread like never before. There is also more of all information available. World is more complex than ever, and predicting it is a lot harder than what humans biologically are used to. So we tend to try predict it and believe we can, more than we actually can.

So, this is not really a point in any direction. Consequences will be hard to predict.


#13

Any mention of control gets brigaded on this forum as if it’s a dirty word.
Whether it’s down to the forum being an echo chamber I don’t know, but people will want safeguards if you want mass adoption.

Am I the idiot that I’m being painted out to be for wanting the ability to limit/prevent/encourage what my kids could access on the safe network?
Why is it met with such incredulation that I might want to run an app that could whitelist certain sites? I’m sat with my daughter and type safe://games.xyy rather than safe://games.xyz and now I’ve got something nsfw on my screen?! I’m human, I make mistakes and sometimes it would be good to have something to say ‘Er… are you sure?’.

It’s similar to the likes of bitcoin, yeah it’s great that we the people are taking control and fingers up to the banks and all that, but how many people trust themselves to keep a paper wallet of their life savings under their mattress?
I think new concepts/methods of security are needed to keep pace with the developments in Crypto and networks such as this since the greater population still need a degree of handholding.


#14

Yea, that was a problem when the internet was new in the 90’s

We now have parents who have lived in a internet connected world all their lives. And if Australia is anything to go by the constant call by politicians that an unfiltered internet is the haven of those sickos and one senior politician used to call people opposed (incl his own fellow ministers) to the proposed internet filter as pedophiles, Australians who use the internet have gotten over the FUD of calling something the haven of pedophiles. We are in the terrorist phase of name calling.

tl;dr

The younger generation (25 and younger) see way past the FUD of calling any part of the internet as a haven of whatever. Its been said for all their lives and like advertising, simply ignore the outrageous claims.

That boat of trying to push people by calling it the haven of criminals or terrorist has mostly sailed. Just watch it the next phase of what to be scared of is due for release sometime soon, maybe the next decade will see it coming. It could even be that we have to be scared of freedom itself.


#15

Well, absolutely. That kind of filter would be applied by some apps. So,the apps you use, yes they can filter and censor as much as the app creator wants. The app then gets as many users as it attracts.

Also, I agree with you totally that a very large number of people need hand holding, and not all are comfortable with having full responsibility over their wallet key (life savings, bank account etc.). The banks etc. provide a service when they take responsibility over it, and you can always get access if you lost your card.

This is something apps can do on SAFE too. So not all apps would need to be 100% anonymous etc. Very likely other types of apps will be created and get users, as well.


#16

Apps like that will come and many people will use them for sure. In a regular browser you can use a parental control extension and I don’t think anyone here would mind that very much if you used something like that for SAFE.

There’s a difference between someone installing parental control software on their own computer and the government or some other group having “parental control” software on the network itself, deciding for everyone what people are allowed say and what they’re allowed to read.


#17

I believe this will be the balancing point for the SAFE network.

Those who wish this sort of access will be able to avail themselves of that.

And then news by independent reporters that doesn’t line up with the official manipulated story cannot be silenced by governments with their internet blocking laws. In Australia reporters who report unfavourable news of the government are now investigated covertly and their sources tracked down using the data retention laws the government put in place. Our “official” news from major media has certainly changed in the last 3 years since the law was introduced.


#18

Paternalism and hierarchy work less and less well as scale increases. In a family or tribe you can see how and why it works in certain contexts. When there is an inadequate feedback-loop between the people with power and the people they impact it becomes very dangerous and very harmful. The feedback-loop is necessarily very poor at any kind of scale.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; that’s because all individuals are limited and stupid. If you give a bureaucrat the power to censor he will censor all the things he disagrees with or does not understand. The more power he has, the more damage he will do.

Just look at how China censors the dialogue. At the BTC conference yesterday all speakers were told they could not discuss ICOs or regulation against exchanges (the two hot-topics) or they would be arrested on the spot.

We need a SAFE space where we can be free, there are no short-cuts to that. If they can censor paedophiles and terrorists they can censor you too, and they will not restrict themselves to things that you agree with. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.


#19

Who cares? They will write this stuff either way. Better to just ignore it and build decent tech.


#20

Mass adoption for every human being on the planet was never a goal of this project. Rather, mass adoption by those individuals who seek a secure, uncensorable, private, and surveillance-free method of communication, commerce, and data storage is the goal. For those who like the status quo, they can keep it. There are many current technologies and mediums for them to choose from.

@Ken, I think for myself and I find this comment by you insulting.