Thank you for your response. I truly believe in the vast benefits of the SFAE network vision. If SAFE works as intended there will be change throughout the world on a scale hard to comprehend.
As you said, some of this change good and some bad. I just wonder though how terrorists could use this for propaganda, recruiting, etc… Classifying “Terrorists” is in a way subjective to some degree. But that is a different conversation.
Again, it is really hard to understand the degree of change SAFE could bring to the world. With some many positives possible I don’t want to underestimate the power of government and their need for control or get blind sided by only looking at the benefits of SAFE. Even if nobody can currently see a way to control SAFE some(body/entity) eventually will. True freedom has never been free and I presume it will never be free.
Basically the baddies will communicate securely anyhow. The ones who don’t are caught quickly and probably not the ones who would use SAFE anyhow.
What SAFE is doing is leveling the playing field so that those who are not as motivated as the baddies to use encryption/security will be able to have it with ease. And those who desire it but never sort it out also get it with ease.
As SAFE grows so will the realisation by more and more that they too can benefit from safe and secure communications. Even our Prime Minister uses WickR to coordinate back stabbing in the parliament, yet he calls for everyone elses communications to be open to the government. At the moment encryption and secure communications is too much effort for the perceived worth by the masses. They want it, but see it as too little for too much effort. Make it easy and just a part of their “internet” usage and they will use it.
Really what I am saying is that its not a question of “What will happen when the baddies use SAFE”, but rather think of all the ordinary people who can now have all the benefits of encryption and secure communications & internet usage, instead of only the ones with most to lose (baddies, spies, etc) taking the effort to use current encryption methods for messaging.
I agree. I sound like a broken record because I say it so much, but SAFE is a new paradigm for our interaction with data, the implications are a bit mind-blowing.
I’d say pretty much the same way they use the internet today. Anonymity might be simpler on SAFE, but it is still there if anyone wants or needs it on clearnet and there’s no way to change that (despite the naive ideas and plans of many state actors). I don’t know, but I’d guess the people posting terrorist stuff now on clearnet use VPNs, Tor etc to hide, so I shouldn’t imagine it will make that big of a difference on the negative side. The reason terrorism happens is not because people can communicate or exchange value privately and securely. If we want to reduce terrorism we need to look at the causes, things like ‘blowback’ from foreign policy etc.
I would say that no matter now many guns you have maths won’t succumb to you, so ‘IF’ SAFE really works as we hope then it won’t matter what the govt do, who they try to coerce, or what laws they make, SAFE will keep on growing simply because people will want to use it. I don’t want to be naive though. SAFE is full of innovation and we can’t be sure that farming will stay decentralised etc and there will never be any points of failure to attack. Your concerns are legitimate, but I hope not applicable when push comes to shove.
If criminals can’t break or control SAFE for their own financial advantage then I’d say the state will also find it very difficult for their agenda too. Once SAFE reaches the mainstream it will become near-impossible to stop, either that or there will be a security issue that will inevitably be exploited and this whole experiment is doomed from the start
Basically, I’m more worried about the clever and greedy hackers and scammers in the early days. If they fail then it will likely be impracticable for any state to even attempt a serious attack on the network when they finally wise-up to what has happened, even for coordinated nation states. No central points of failure means no point to apply pressure to. There haven’t been many situations like that before for any states to deal with, so the truly decentralised model breaks new ground. Perhaps your final presumption is only true when it is possible to ‘control’ something. I guess only time will tell how robust SAFE really is
Even our Prime Minister uses WickR to coordinate back stabbing in the parliament, yet he calls for everyone elses communications to be open to the government.
Indeed one (e.g. the government) can’t have it both ways: secure communications for everyone or the risk your communication could also be compromised eventually (e.g. Juniper backdoor).
Fyi, in 1988 a precursor ‘internet’ of the Belgium government was ‘hacked’ to show that the security of that system was not ok.
Instead of a ‘thank you for showing that’, the prime minister tried to get the hackers convicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistel.
My concern is not that there is CP and ISIS on SAFE.
If they are using the network, it means we made it !
I just don’t want to be shown NSFL images as I intend to use the network for other purposes.
The way public/private files are handled is going to be very important.
You need to find stuffs if you want to look for them, but not be shown CP images marked as public first hand (especially if you don’t want anything to do with it)
You know SAFE will be a “you ask for the file” system, there isn’t a system where the SAFE network shoves random public files into your client.
Of course if you choose to go to real questionable SAFEsites then like the current internet you could asking for anything. But you have that problem with the current internet. And I haven’t come across that stuff at all, but I know others who visit the more questionable sites have.
Does this mean that the likes of Scam/Terrorist etc websites could exist within the environment or would there still be some type of protection in place?
Bring them on!
It is going to be very different to what they’re used to. A sea of self-encrypted chunks instead of all the usual servers and firewalls. SAFE will earn its fate, one way or the other.
These things exist today on clearnet and Tor. SAFE wouldn’t be very censor resistant if it could be censored.
“Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master”
One man’s freedom-fighter is another’s terrorist. There are plenty of very aggressive and authoritarian states out there who oppress their people (all of them perhaps? ). SAFE offers a kind of refuge. Security, privacy and freedom, for everyone! This is about public empowerment. You don’t need to be a full-on anarchist to appreciate the value and importance of something like SAFE… but it helps
Trusted hosts and information sources develop over time - as they did on clearnet. It’s better if that happens in a decentralised way imo.
Im curious in a world of total anonymity how would governments keep control of things like murder of innocent people for example. Humans after all seem to like killing each other, for profit mostly, and if restrictions were lifted I wonder how people would exist in a world where murders for example had a place to hide in SAFE. Governments tend to use peaceful sanctions as one way of trying to control this type of behaviour without the need of going to war, but if they can no longer freeze assets of murderers how would they keep control. Surely without some control you end up with a “Mad Max” type environment in which no one wins except the worst of humanity, and who wants to live in that world?
That is the world we currently live in and have always lived in. isn’t it?
Cash, silver and gold have always been around. We now have crypto too, so there’s no putting that genie back into its bottle. Murders happen in the real world, not online. There are currently thousands of people offering assassin services (all of which are scams I’m sure) on the dark net.
The situation for law enforcement won’t change. They will need to use real world investigations and real world evidence in order to catch criminals who commit their crimes in the real world. Murders don’t happen digitally, encrypted communication has always been around and it has always been used by people with good and bad intentions.
I strongly disagree with this. Attempting to control (exert dominion with the threat of force) is what causes all of the problems in the world imo. I think you should replace the word ‘control’ with ‘accountability’. We need some way to hold people accountable for the harm they cause. Controlling them is just an illusion. SAFE doesn’t make any difference to our accountability systems really imo. They are as broken as they have ever been. But they can continue to operate in the same way they always have. The only laws they will find much more difficult to enforce are ones that are already a bit of a joke - copyright in digital world etc.
SAFE offers us the chance to change the power paradigm, echoing its design back into our social and political world. I’m not sure I want to live in a world where SAFE does not materialise. I find that kind Orwellian, dystopian future of ultimate, centralised control absolutely terrifying. SAFE is the best defence from that kind of future that I have ever come across.
PS we’re very off-topic, maybe a mod should move all this into another thread…?
Surely the closet thing we have to an example of a peaceful race of humans are the Bushmen in Africa, where they share their fortunes amongst their community and are equal in all respects in their community and dont believe in individual material gain. So unless we adopt their culture into our own and share the worlds wealth equally, I cant see how allowing criminals to hide their wealth in complete anonymity will make the world a better place.
Existing governments dont work and they are all corrupt, unless we adopt a better system things will just continue as is, or are you suggesting that the likes of Maidsafe is the start of this change to an alternative and better future for “all”?
That is exactly what I’m suggesting.
I’m not sure I see the connection in your first point. We don’t need to revert to some archaic tribal model, I personally want to see us advance to a system of decentralised accountability. What I want doesn’t matter though. And none of it has anything to do with capitalism or wealth redistribution. This is just about technological empowerment.
It not a matter of ‘allowing’ it. They already can. They have always been able to and they will always be able to. I think it would certainly make the world a worse place if states had that kind of power over their people?! I’d certainly leave any country where that kind of control could be exercised over a citizen’s wealth. Thankfully all they control is fiat in banks. Cash, metals, gems, art and artifacts, and ofc cryptos, will always be around and criminals (or innocents being persecuted by the state) will always be able to hide their wealth if they want to.
Why do you find that funny?
If true then we have been incredibly naive to believe methods like HTTPS and Tor protect our information from NSA snooping. Including myself! Of course it’s pretty serious but I found it funny how much of information security could be a farce.
The SAFE network will be safe enough I think but I wouldn’t be surprised if the NSA will be able to track the data chunks. The same in most other countries perhaps. The big fibers connecting nations are no doubt completely tapped by intelligence agencies around the world.
I don’t think they’ll bother doing that. They’ll simply hack the weakest link - the endpoint - instead.
Okay, yes that’s a good point. I even heard that the NSA has chips inside PCs. But that sounds like a conspiracy theory. An even more extreme claim I heard is that ordinary chips have secret scalar technology inside them. That really sounds like tinfoil hat stuff and I don’t believe it, but chips like hardware keyloggers and things like that, maybe possible.
They don’t do this out of some form of enlightenment but out of a need to survive. Those who are selfish and don’t share are kicked out of the group and left to fend for themselves. Many First Nations do something similar. But what brings such groups together is the harsh conditions outside and the need to come together in order to survive. Nature can be kind and provide a wonderous bounty but she can also be deadly cruel. There are no social safety nets in the wild. If you lose your tribe all you have is yourself and that very well can mean death. So that lack of belief in individual material gain and sharing all one had has it’s roots in facing down brutal survival conditions. Would you be willing to ostrocize someone you’ve known all your life, knowing they might die, for not sharing all they had and being selfish? Just putting it in perspective for you here.
It would work the same way getting corporations to invest in the SAFE network would work. The SAFE network calculates farming rates and the price to upload to the network based on how many safecoins are in existence and how many resources the network has. Therefore criminal, corporate or average joe makes little difference. You could be sitting on millions of dollar worth of safecoin and you’d still help the network because you’d be influencing the value of safecoin and possibly contributing resources to the network at large.
Also what is a criminal? Right now it’s a crime in Canada to politically criticize the state of Israel, even tho to make that a crime is a violation of one’s free speech. In several countries they have mandatory vaccines which means it’s a crime to refuse them, even tho that violates one’s health freedoms and the Nuremberg code. Where canabis is illegal it’s a crime to give canabis oil to your child in order to heal them even if it produces possitive responses. In various Arab countries it’s a crime, or at least a social deviation that results in legal prosecution, for a woman to drive a car or worse show her face in public. My point is legality != morality. Making it impossible to violate the law does not make the world a better place.
What about criminals just categorised as people who steal and kill and will not be tolerated within the new environment. There has to be some kind of control/consequence to these actions or we all just end up shooting each other and stealing whatever we can. The huge crypto thefts just prove the point. If no one knows your identity and there are no repercussions for your actions.
And if a theft does take place should there not be insurance in place to protect those victims from loss?
SOkay Lee’s forget about the concept of law for a moment. Why are they stealing and killing? If your girlfriend gets raped and robbed by a Crack addict is it not reasonable for you to want to retaliate? Prohibition doesn’t work. Would drugs be of such great value if they were legal? If you could grow weed in your back yard would it be worth such a high price? If you could grow a field of poppies and legally refine them into opiates would things like heroine be of the same value?
People aren’t all that violent when their base needs are being met. So the question has to be asked why are people stealing and killing?
But in general I’d say use reputation systems. SAFE allows one to publicly post data permanently. This means if you can document facts on an antisocial individual this could be turned into a public or private reputation system to show who is social and who is antisocial and in what way and how much. If you know someone is a habitual liar you know not to trust a thing they say without verifying it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t play the piano beautifully. If you know someone is a kleptomaniac you know not to leave anything valuable around them but that doesn’t mean they can’t help you do excellent research. If someone enjoys killing people perhaps hire him as a professional assassin or just put a bullet in his head.
Crypto thefts are the result of insecure software. If somewhere can be subjected ed to ransomeware the fault is with the insecure software not crypto.
You can kill someone anonymously right now with a high power sniper rifle. You don’t need crypto to be anonymously antisocial.
Do you see multitools and kitchen knives with disclaimers about not using it to kill people?
Do you have to sign a release every time you buy a saw or a chainsaw promising to not chop animals in half with it?
Tools are tools. The SafeNetwork provides the freedom to do whatever you want with it, it is truly a revolutionary technology that catapult storage, processing, communication and digital payments to a whole new dimension, making it universally accessible to anyone, anywhere, securely.
Now, while you think about assholes taking advantage of it to do some weird shit with it, I am thinking about the revolutionary implications to IoT and the healthcare industry.