SAFE URL: use a real internet domain such as safenetwork.net


#41

I agree, no one cares about the onion network or about bitcoin on the street.
They see bitcoin as just as funny money and the darknet for a place to sell drugs and a place for dirty old pervs.

If the nsa wanted to track you because you are a person of interest, they are probably tracking your keyboard strokes built into your mother board or your OS and streaming it on their systems.

People really want ownership and control of their own data and not having paying the price of a large data server owning the whole record of ones life.
This where a glimmer of hope came from bitcoin to avoid company holding your credit information. But for most people this is to hard and costly.
This why the government stood up for a moment about bitcoin because they only interested in following the money rather the person.

It is always about the money nothing more or nothing less because we live in a contract commercial law system.
Internet privacy means nothing for most people, because they are already registered and the man knows where you work, when you buy your shopping, what you eat and drink, how many family members you have, and how may times you go the doctor.
really lets face it they know everything, and probably know when you are having shit on the toilet because you left your mobile phone in your pocket.


#42

This is true, and a very important part of what this achieves.

By using the approach I’ve described, we can spread awareness more widely and more easily because everyone - not just us - who shares a SAFE URL would be sharing both:

  • immediate access to the content for someone who already has the browser plugin, and
  • immediate access to a website that promotes SAFEnetwork to everyone who clicks the URL but has not yet heard of SAFEnetwork.

Without this approach there’s no point sharing a
SAFE URL unless at the same time you include details of what SAFEnetwork is and how to access it. It’s OK to do that, but limits the effectiveness considerably. It creates friction for the sharer and the receiver, and it limits the channels through which this can be done, and who will be able to do it effectively.

If anyone, even someone who doesn’t even know what a SAFE URL is can share such a URL (twitter retweet for example), and everyone who visits it gets to see a page explaining SAFEnetwork and how to access it, that’s a million more times more effective in spreading awareness.

Helping spread awareness of SAFEnetwork is the whole point of the idea, so I think you should agree it’s a way to improve that considerably.

The fact that it also makes it a couple of clicks to install the plugin and have access to the content is also important IMO. People are much more likely to act in the moment than if it’s something they have to remember to do later, or they have to search in Google to learn about what SAFEnetwork is, and somehow discover they need to install a plugin, and then know how to find it (I bet most browser users still don’t know how to do that) - all this requires more motivation or assumed knowledge, so the proposal reduces “friction” in the adoption process too.

Friction matters in mass adoption just as much as awareness, and this idea handles both very well.


#43

Just like one sexual encounter could yield a pregnancy, so can one click be used to nail someone to the wall. Most here know where I stand on mass adoption. It can still be achieved without this, though at a slightly slower pace. My love for the SAFE team doesn’t eliminate the chances of an organization hijacking the server. In this case new users wouldn’t know what to expect. A redirect to a shady site or honeypot scenario would have the opposite impact on SAFE adoption.

I unfortunately have no solution other than a public awareness campaign strongly coupled with a streamlined opsec presentation. A viral you tube video perhaps. Attach it to something humorous and we might get all the attention we need. The SAFE portion of the video should ideally be no longer than two minutes. Once interest is garnered, the user will have the strongly suggested option of going through a list of videos in a specific viewing order. The artistic creative approach is IMHO the best path forward. It has made the poor rich and the obscure very popular. Some even bordering on being perceived as gods.

We need to push SAFE with enormous intensity. Something we do not lack in this forum. If we took half the passion found on this forum and applied it to a public media campaign, mass adoption would be achieved shortly after launch. So all you great orators, creative thinkers, and stylish presenters, structuring this campaign needs to happen sooner than later. @happybeing , will you lead the charge? :smiley:


#44

If your intention is to spur mass adoption @happybeing, then I do believe that you are thinking along the right lines. While I do not share the “What About the Validity of the Addon” argument point of view, I do have several other points to make.

Use technical ignorance advantageously

When an individual navigates to a link to a specific page on the network, yet is unaware of the way that the Network works, this will serve as a teachable moment, and inform them of primarily how to access the content that they are expecting, and secondly what they are using (if they choose to explore further).

Create a human-meaningful link between the clearnet and the Network

While some may argue that the break between the clearnet and the Network be clean, I would respond that if that were the case, we shouldn’t be allowing browsers to access the Network in the first place.

There is a reason to do so, and that is because the usage thereof is widespread. Widespread and familiar. And for mass adoption, either intuitiveness or familiarity is tantamount. Familiarity is then indeed a boon for mass adoption, despite it’s ability to obscure the clean break.

Provide end-users with informative error messages

If a user navigates to a location on the Network, but gets redirected to the server, then they can be sure that the addon is not working properly.

Of course, the addon must provide a distinct “power”-type button (think uBlock origin) that turns this on and off, or else we’ll get many a “help wanted” post that ends with the actual activation of the addon.[1]

Breaks historical usage

The custom URL scheme (safe://) approach would have been ideal as it would correlate to a number of other applicable instances, such as file://, magnet://, ftp://, (even bitcoin:// !!!) etc. It’s almost as if these custom schemes were made for just such a purpose.

This type of behavior handling has been working for ages even before browsers were invented, so I am frustrated that the addon developers so easily gave up on this idea.

Applications like the Windows Store (and others) appear to get around this by adding themselves to the “Local State”. There are work around (very hacky ones), but adding these are kind of convoluted when Chrome should have native support.
austin.a@mavenwave.com - Chromium Support Issue 162124: Chrome can’t handle custom URI schemes in Windows 8

or

Redirects to a standardized URL

ICANN does not care about the Network. If anything, they would be vehemently opposed to it. If they restrained themselves to only acting inside of their juristiction (ha!) and they follow their own rules when it comes to domain name administration (HA!) then they have no reason to standarize this URL to our own usage.

The fact of the matter is that URLs change their pointers and change hosts and change owners. Any URL registration is subject to human error and oversight (if nothing more malicious), and may not remain what we wish it to remain.

This is a side-effect of our disastrous DNS system, and despite our best intentions is subject to redirection; for instance if the registration mistakenly expired, or a non-authoritative DNS server’s cache had not been updated.

Server administration

I believe that the concerns about the server have been aptly detailed out previously in this thread.

EDIT: Despite my concerns, and after re-reading this thread, I do believe that this is a very ingenuitive course of action and would throw my support behind it if implemented.


[1] I am firmly of the belief that users should not be able to access clearnet sites while using the network for security reasons in the same browsing session. Therefore I support the idea that the addon is able to be turned on and off.


#45

Okay that clarifies but I have a followup question. If that is the case then how does the website know if any given user has or does not have the safe browser addon and has tried to access the safe network? In short how does the website know to display on my webbrowser or conversely how does my web browser know to call up the page in response to this particular “error”?


#46

Flip your approach on its head.

This works the same as if it implemented the .safe suffix. The addon would scan each url to see if it was a safe url and redirect if necessary.

If you don’t have the addon, then http://safenetwork.io/*/* would redirect to http:safenetwork.io.


#47

@blindsite2k The website doesn’t need to know if someone has the add-on or not because it is only visited if the user doesn’t have the add-on (or if they’ve disabled it if course). Therefore the website can always show information helpful to someone who doesn’t have the add-on and is trying to access SAFEnetwork.

It works because if someone has the add-on, and tries to visit a SAFE Network link (ie a link which begins with “safenetwork.net” in my example), the add-on knows it as a SAFEnetwork link, and accesses SAFEnetwork instead. The website is not involved at all in this case.


#48

But how is the website called to tell the user to GET the addon if the user’s browser or the user doesn’t know the addon exists AND the website doesn’t know the user has the addon or not? How is this introduction made? I’m not understanding your logic here because from my perspective if my web browser doesn’t know an addon exists or a particular website exists to tell me about it then I’ll get a huge “server not found” if I try to visit an unknown type of url. Seems introductions are in order.


#49

Nah, how 'bout this.

Instead of using safenetwork.net, we use maidsafe.org.

Addon not installed:

  1. Recieve referral to maidsafe.org/my_user/my_content
  2. Click (type in, etc.) referral into browser
  3. Be redirected to maidsafe.org (homepage)
  4. Read maidsafe.org
  5. Realize that you need addon to work
  6. Install addon
  7. Type in maidsafe.org/my_user/my_content
  8. Addon sees “maidsafe.org” and retrieves content from SAFE Network

Addon installed

Same as 7-8 above

THE TRICK HERE - is to have the landing page include stuff like “if you were directed here instead of to your content, check/install this addon.”

It’s not automated, the ignorant user has to install the addon for themselves - the browser can’t do that automatically!


#50

That’s better but what is the problem that is being solved?

The way I understand it, someone out there on the Web would instead of this:

  • click here (safe://…) (you need Firefox and this (link to Firefox add on) add on)

have to do this:

The both explanatory links explain the same thing, but the first is better because it takes Safe users directly to the Safe link and others directly to the add on download page (which in turn has links to help pages and other relevant sites as all add on pages do).

What value does the second approach add over the first?


#51

I don’t think this is a place for leaders and followers, so no. My approach is to contribute in various ways, and if the community or a subgroup emerges with a common purpose I’ll be part of that, or go my own way with some things where that seems worthwhile etc

@Tonda we disagree about a couple of things. Firstly, I do agree there are risks such as you and @smacz have pointed out - helpfully. More than were apparent to me initially, but I’m still not seeing anything that I think is worth throwing away the benefits from this suggestion.

We would need to explore each scenario more carefully I think: who and how many might be affected, consequences, how likely, how much during each stage of adoption, and see what mitigation can be put in place - including disabling this feature at some point in an update. At the same time we should quantify the risks of slower adoption, and particularly a failure to reach mass adoption. The internet doesn’t just need another niche security product, it needs something that benefits everyone. A niche SAFEnetwork would be a great improvement, but if it reaches a few million users, that would be a terrible outcome IMO.

So we can weigh the costs and benefits, at least theoretically. At the same time we (MaidSafe?) can build a demonstration to help people understand the two approaches - because clearly it is a difficult idea for many to grasp (evidenced by the discussion on how it works above) .

Where I think we disagree most is, firstly:

  • how difficult it is going to be to gain traction and go viral. I spent a couple of years working on startup/spin-off ideas for the dotcom era before it was boom (late 90’s) or bust, when the goal was to gain users and worry about revenue later. We built some cool things, but I’ll tell you, it looks easy, but it is more like rocket science: how to make something that can go viral is very hard to understand and design for, can blow up in your face on the launchpad (google+), or take off into orbit. And even then it can crash to earth - think MySpace! :slightly_smiling: We all know the success stories, but what we don’t see are the tens of thousands of “nearly” ideas and “nearly” start-ups that would fill the Grand Canyon! To make SAFEnetwork reach the masses we need to try many things, reach as many people as possible, and take some risks. The risks are worthwhile because the benefit to those masses will be enormous - we believe this, but they may never even hear about SAFEnetwork or get what it offers, just like hardly any of us anticipated the benefits of the web, or facebook, or twitter etc. How many people went out of their way to learn about any those before they became unavoidable? Almost everyone who joins a mass product does so once it has become hard to avoid & trivial to join (or hard not to join :slightly_smiling:). The first 500 million users are generally the hardest! :wink:

Underestimating this task, thinking build it and they will come etc, could leave hundreds of millions of people who we could have protected, completely vulnerable.

The second issue where we differ is the security risk balance sheet:

  • if we don’t get 100 million users, that’s 100 million more people who are left completely vulnerable (and rapidly more vulnerable all the time). To me, the priority is to get as many people using SAFEnetwork as possible as quickly as possible. I think this is urgent. So while there are risks in this proposal, I think not doing it is more risky for far more people. As I’ve said, we can look more into that, but I think we’re a risk averse community - so we need to look as hard at the risks of not doing this, and not kid ourselves that we don’t have to take some risks, or that because we believe in SAFEnetwork, it will be adopted by 100 million users without us trying everything we can think of to make that possible. :slightly_smiling:

When you believe in something, it’s easy to think others will get it too, but few people will get it the way we do. So reaching as many people as we can, by as many methods as we can think of, will be vital to this being of any benefit at all to the majority general population, rather than another niche security product. And speed is important.


#52

Temporary leadership is inevitable for large tasks. This place is the perfect place to recruit for the very purpose suggested above.

I don’t want to throw it away. I just think it needs tweaking. scmac already took a stab at it.

I don’t think this idea will speed adoption greatly. What it will likely do is lower the barrier of entry and speed the transition from clear to SAFE. They would still only discover SAFE by chance under this hypothetical circumstance. The various factors of discovery need considering for a better understanding of the impact.

People respond well to extremes or edge case scenario’s. Time for our thinking caps.:slightly_smiling:

I’m not underestimating this to any degree. In fact I proposed that we create a large team to handle this task. It’s a huge undertaking indeed.

You could quickly lose those 100 million if a security vulnerability causes even one person negative notoriety or hostility. I strongly believe SAFE should be a niche network for the first 6 months . This network needs to be thoroughly tested till the wheels fall off before inviting the world in. A two month beta just won’t cut it.:disappointed_relieved:

What you get from me isn’t blind idealism, instead it’s genuine concern and creative approaches IMO.

janitor has the right idea IMO. We need to educate future users to format their links in the way suggested above. Start with strong roots and you’ll more likely get a thriving tree. Keep in mind that users posting links will likely have had exposure to SAFE before doing so. It is at the time of exposure that we encourage standardized practice. Even going as far as to flag improperly formatted links. Example: Hey douche mouth, use proper formatting or i’ll reverse you existence!!!:angry:

@happybeing , by all means continue working this out. If you can find a way to blind/obfuscate the target address to prevent the server from snooping, then problem solved IMO.:wink:


#53

This seems contradictory to me, but anyway I’m not saying this will speed adoption greatly, I’m saying that I think the importance of protecting as many people as quickly as possible is being weighed insufficiently. That not going all out for mass adoption is a bigger risk, and to me it would be a “terrible outcome” if SAFEnetwork became one more niche security product with a only few million users.

You could quickly lose those 100 million if a security vulnerability causes even one person negative notoriety or hostility.

I think we have to disagree on that. I have a very different understanding of those dynamics. My observation is that crowds exhibit a great deal of inertia, and once using something that works for them will hang onto it way beyond what objectively seems reasonable. They will remain unmoved throughout many pushes until, one event - often seemingly insignificant - triggers a sudden transition. And this presupposes an alternative to switch to.

We only have to look at the difficulty the crowd has in moving from using the products of the surveillance economy, to see that one event, or indeed a regular procession of events that are wreaking havoc in the lives of those directly affected are not what mixed a crowd (from the Ashley Madison hack, the US OPM hack, numerous beaches of facebook, google gmail, yahoo mail etc). A single event - almost no matter how terrible for an individual - is never the decisive factor with a crowd - it just looks that way if you disregard the events that went before that final straw. With individuals yes, but not 100 million users.

by all means continue working this out. If you can find a way to blind/obfuscate the target address to prevent the server from snooping, then problem solved IMO.

Of course, this we should do. I said let’s find ways to mitigate the issues raised, and if we can solve them completely, all the better. But you are still saying “this needs tweaking” rather than, we should do it, but see if we can make it more secure if possible.

It’s a subtle point perhaps, but I’m saying we should try hard to make this work, and only not do it if we find greater security issues than the ones raised thus far, or if we don’t value mass adoption, or if we don’t believe this would help mass adoption.

The points you raise about timing, length of beta etc are valid, but don’t directly bear on this feature IMO. Because it isn’t a magic key to mass adoption - it won’t automatically happen because of this, but it will help turbocharge the marketing machine considerably IMO, once we hit the accelerator.

Mass adoption is the big prize for everyone. I don’t expect us to achieve it, because I know how hard that is, but it is that possibility that got me involved, and it’s a big factor in why I put so much time into this project.


#54

What’s contradictive about it speeding up the individual transition from using clear to SAFE during the immediate browsing session? It not having a GREAT impact is just my personal opinion, not one that I’m accusing you of sharing.:wink:

Even if some continue to use it, growth will be stifled by fear and uncertainty. The number of potential users lost would be unknowable. The number of alternatives is growing rapidly. That much is certain.

Exactly! I can’t back a half baked solution. Which is why I haven’t personally given the green light.

Lol! Whats subtle is your attempt to paint me into a corner. I strongly believe in the necessity of mass adoption. I never suggested otherwise. What I AM against is regressive ideas. With obfuscation the idea is sound. Without it, you put others at risk. There are other ways to speed up adoption. Most don’t gamble with peoples lives.:worried:

.


#55

There the key difference again: you think not doing this is safer for people than doing it, while I think the opposite.

We agree that we should focus on improving this, because we both think it would help move SAFEnetwork towards mass adoption.

I also think the first point needs fleshing out (as stated earlier - identify scenarios in detail and try to quantify risks either way) because it may help us move forward, and avoid the (different) bad consequences each of us imagines from doing/not doing this! :slightly_smiling:

Are you willing to detail the risks you are concerned about? Precise scenarios, plus potential consequences and estimated likelihood? I can look at the risks of not doing it, but am not the best person to do the former.


#56

You proposed an idea, and it’s good that you’re advocating for it. However, I wonder if you will take the empirical evidence of this thread into account.

Your idea is confusing. I put a website url into my browser, but I won’t REALLY go to that website, because the browser extension will intercept the request … except that if the browser extension is not installed, or if it’s not enabled, or if it’s crashed, than i WILL go to the url that I put into my browser.

I’m exhausted by this thought. When I contemplate the man centuries of useless discussion, blog posts, forum posts, phone calls, and emails that this will inflict on the world.

I believe that the path that your are proposing is not an optimal path, and that short of promoting the network, it will hinder it.


#57

That’s a lot of belief for one who doesn’t do much more than whine in his post.

“empirical evidence”…don’t make me laugh. Many of the previous posts mistook this solution, and wandered down a path that doesn’t even apply once the solution is understood. I have yet to hear more than circumstantial moaning such as yours that means nothing, and should be taken as nothing.

If this hurts your head, perhaps you should wait until v2.0 is released. Hell, I’ve already spent too much time contemplating your useless post.


#58

hmmmmm - it really could/would make the Interconnection between Safe/Old_Internet smoother and even non-Computer-People wouldn’t need a large explanation/would have reason to ask “whats this?! Why would I need/want it?” … you just click a link … “oh i need something to see the content” and there you are …

To be clear … I don’t exactly know if I like the Idea or if I think links would get too long&therefore would be a “PR-problem” … I think the safe network will be a success any way … and therefore chrome will have to adapt if we stick to the safe:-solution … if we don’t they probably won’t and we will have to live with those clumsy links for all eternity …
Though I like the suggestion of @happybeing I am afraid of its long-term consequences … I tend to stick with safe: and slow down adoption in exchange to a better long-term-usability …


#59

having some sort of small barrier also can create interest … (plus people are used to “need” addons anyway … think of ad-blocker, youtube-“unlocker”) …

I don’t think safe could have the same problems i2p and tor have … with safecoin and online-storage-capabilities it has more to offer and will attract more/other people than the other networks …

ps: the reason tor/i2p is annoying in my opinion is that using tor/i2p and the clearnet in parallel is difficult/not possible … you have to change your proxy-settings … use a special browser to be safe … or you need to start a “router” in your command line to use it … this will be way better with the safe network and ensure its success :slightly_smiling:


#60

You obviously have a right to an opinion. Your stance, I believe is being adequately (and much more politely) advocated by HappyBeing.

Why does my expressing an opposing opinion threaten you so much? Do you really have so much invested in this idea to risk losing teeth over? Why did this touch such a raw nerve with you? Are you just a really angry person who lashes out on forums as therapy?

EDIT: I have reviewed your posts, and see that you’re not just a troll and seem to contribute to the community in more ways than angry lashing out. I assume you’re just having a bad day. Hope your day gets better, the year is only getting started. As for me, I post my opinions when I feel that they express views that need to be considered and are apparently not being. I do this because I care about this project as you do.