Re: [Help-gnunet] Measures Against Abuse not a topic of FAQ

[Jan Eichstaedt]

Dear GNUnet Project:

The other day I asked "why are Measures Against Abuse not a topic of the
project's FAQ?" When I describe the GNUnet to ordinary people (of
different nationality and background) and then that I would like to help
hacking on it, very similar questions arise:

'Wouldn't this be a perfect hiding-place or tool for <fill in
descriptions of very bad people>?'

I also had some conversation about this off-list (with people I only
will disclose if they allow) of which the following is an attempt to
summarize the current status of the question.

The Question

I would like to know whether the GNUnet Project already has or is
planning on any measures against using the GNUnet in inhumane ways, i.e.
using it to diminish human's "... right to life, liberty and security of
person." (UN General Assembly, 1948, §3). Thus, by inhumane I mean any
deed that is violating any of the human rights as adopted and proclaimed
by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

Please let me explain the wording of this question and why this is
fitting to a project like the GNUnet. My usage of terms like abuse, good
deeds, bad deeds and the like misled some. E.g., the word abuse led to:
"... seem to all be of a commercial nature". Unfortunately, abuse does
not stop there but goes way beyond. Thus, I now try to define what would
be good or bad and abridge it by "humane' and 'inhumane' respectively.

Because a p2p net would span multiple nations, this definition needs to
be based on a broad consensus, i.e. across nations. The constitution and
law of which particular nation should apply?

A p2p net has so much positive potential (not defined on purpose)
wouldn't it be great to diminish it's negative potential (see above for
a definition)?

The Answer,

or the attempts on it so far, I leave out, for now, because I would like
to know what people in the project are thinking. The outcome should be
an answer in the FAQ.


Best,
Jan