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

[Jan Eichstaedt]

Hi Ryan, Hi List:

Thank you for your personal account on this. I haven't been talking
about this question for too long. It is very valuable to me to find
people who are interested.

On 10/04/2016 03:41 PM, Ryan Getz wrote:
> I wasn't going to reply to this but after seeing the message a  couple
> of times, I decided I'd chip in. Like Stefan, I am not affiliated
> directly with the GNUnet project and my response and opinions do not
> reflect those or the project or contributors. They are my personal
> opinions alone.
> 
>     On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Huchler wrote:
>     > You should not blaime the tools for people doing bad stuff with
>     it. Hell
>     > americans even allow guns for everybody and encurage everybody to have
>     > 100 guns at their home, even they get used often for terrible crimes.
>     > And the main purpose of weapons is to kill people and animals,
>     while the
>     > main purpose of GnuNet is not to do criminal stuff.
> 
> 
> I liked your response Stefan. thank you for replying. Although I think
> the above statement has a valid point to make, I think it misrepresents
> America pretty significantly. Most Americans do not own guns nor are
> people encouraged to stockpile them (maybe in specific circles but this
> is certainly not representative of the country).
> 
>     > Jan Eichstaedt <address@hidden
>     <mailto:address@hidden>> writes:
>     >
>     > > 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 hear this question quite often (although more commonly for different
> networks). The answer, in my opinion, is difficult.
> 
> 
>     > > 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)?
> 
> 
> After attempting to answer this question, I think it is far more
> personal than it initially seems. Networks and most technologies in
> general are impartial. The meaning of right and wrong has no direct
> translation to our software, hardware, networks and even varies by
> region (local laws). You've clarified your definitions but I think most
> would agree the priority and interpretation varies by region and
> countries. We've seen attempts to address this long standing policy
> issue that the internet brought and what we see are trade offs but no
> complete solution.
> 
> I would encourage you to look at the "Great Firewall of China" as one
> example of a country attempting to address this with the internet. One
> could look at this solution as a way to restrict material and
> communication deemed illegal or "bad" but another could look at the
> censorship, issues with effectiveness and come to different conclusions.
> Meanwhile, it fails to allow only the "good" while others bypass it to
> do "bad".
> 
> Personally, I think people like to paint the world into firm concepts of
> black/white, good/bad, humane/inhumane. The world is far more complex
> with nearly everything falling somewhere between the two extremes of the
> spectrum. If your requirements are something that allows only the "good"
> but never the "bad", I'm afraid you'll likely be waiting quite some time
> before any communications platform, that allows easy communication at a
> large scale, to meet these requirements. I have yet to see a proposal
> for such a solution without any significant trade-offs or that works at
> scale.

I see it the same way: no black no white, all gray. This does not stop
me, however, from wishing to have at least a lighter gray. I can very
much relate to what you have written. I'm not waiting for perfection,
either. (Nevertheless, "delay is preferable to error" (T.J.).)

> 
> Computers can be used for both "bad" and "good". The internet, the web,
> email, telecom networks (wired and wireless) have varying levels of
> centralization and yet even with great censorship cannot meet this
> expectation of control over how it is used. End to end encrypted
> messaging platforms are often also a target of this criticism but even
> those who shift to a man-in-the-middle or "backdoor" approach fail to
> address this entirely. Even if this control would be desired and
> implemented without any abuse (from the controlling authority), what has
> truly been accomplished? Have you accomplished what you desired to? You
> use Silk Road as an example of what to prevent. We spent a lot of time
> looking at platforms as the abuse, rather than them being just that - a
> platform. When you shut down an encrypted communication platform that
> was used for abuse, the abuse does not stop, it typically moves.
> Elminate the internet and criminals will use cell phones (often
> pre-paid/"burner" phones - already used for this purpose). Eliminate
> cell phones and criminals will meet in person or use private couriers.
> You're moving the "issue" but not really preventing it. Perhaps as an
> operator, you did manage to get it off your network.. this may seem
> great but is it actually a net benefit to mankind? Often it is not, the
> issue has only migrated.

Your line of arguments seems sound and reasonable to me. One cannot
prevent all inhumane usage of a p2p network. Where this was tried civil
rights suffer. Wouldn't it, however, be reasonable to develop a internal
way to deal with inhumane deeds if they surface? This would be far from
perfect, which is not desirable in the first place. You gave the reason
for this.

> 
> I know many people struggle with this. Some of the early contributors to
> the internet have made comments that they would've done things
> differently if they had today's knowledge of threats. The goal was to
> make it easy to connect without much thought of security. While I've
> seen comments stating they may have done things differently, after
> seeing how things played out, I have not seen one who regrets their
> contributions entirely. It may be unfortunate that people can use any
> system for unintended, and sometimes malicious usage but that does not
> alone mean that these systems should not exist or people should not
> contribute to them. My automobile is great for transportation but in the
> wrong hands, with ill intent, it can become a deadly weapon. While it is
> not perfect, I'm certainly glad it exists, along with computers, the
> internet, the telecom networks, etc.

Your argument apply for a very wide array of artifacts, form computers
to automobiles. Why not focus on p2p networks. I find them very special.
In their particular way they can become means that would help to keep
inhuman usage at bay, while not perfectly so (see above).

> 
> Rather than asking "what prevents this from being used for evil?" it may
> be more appropriate to ask "does the good seem to outweigh the bad?".
> This will be a personal opinion and your right to decide on whatever
> answer you feel is best but I do feel it is important to understand and
> think about how this issue applies to virtually everything... even, as
> Stefan mentioned earlier, outside of communication or technology
> (although I think communication, in general, has no current solution to
> this). This may not have answered your question but hopefully it
> provides some insight into how some feel about this topic and inspires
> some additional consideration around the question.

At first glance, it seems plausible to characterize this as personal.
However, the balancing of opposing entity's (in particular legal)
positions -- may they be characterized as humane vs. inhumane or else
wise -- is mostly a matter for public, societal, and predominantly
juridical authorities. This makes finding a balance visible to others. I
would recommend that also the GNUnet Project should care just how it is
perceived by others. A perception that would be supported by working on
some-day-wise self-government. From my perspective, your thoughtful
answer has very well contributed to a favorable perception of the GNUnet
Project. I very much appreciate that; thank you so much.


Best Regards,
Jan
> 
> Best Regards,
> Ryan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-gnunet mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
> 


-- 
PD Dr. Jan Eichstaedt
2041 Swans Neck Way
Reston, VA 20191-4023, USA
Phone: +1 571 306 4800

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature