Re: The dilemma of the dark web: protecting neo-Nazis and dissidents alike

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Re: The dilemma of the dark web: protecting neo-Nazis and dissidents alike
> Date: August 26, 2017 at 10:58:05 AM EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> [Note:  This comment comes from friend David Reed.  DLH]
>
> From: dpreed () reed com
> Subject: RE: The dilemma of the dark web: protecting neo-Nazis and dissidents alike
> Date: August 24, 2017 at 9:31:37 AM EDT
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com
>
> I'm going to have to stick my neck out here.
>
> I'm not sure why anyone would think that the Connectivity functions of the world should be expected, or even asked, 
> to deal with either neo-Nazis or dissidents.
>
> It's kind of absurd. Like expecting the air to defend us against nuclear missiles.
>
> Now at this point someone usually pipes up and says, "but wait, if the Internet can't be made to defend us against 
> <your problem here> the Internet is *broken*".  And someone will jump in and say, "if you let me redesigh the 
> Internet the way it should have been done, I will make the Internet *completely secure* and *completely safe*!"
>
> Well, no. The sad truth is that the messaging infrastructure can't do its function and also protect you against all 
> things you believe to be bad, evil, ...
>
> What troubles me a little more is to see companies that specialize in being open markets for content "stepping up" to 
> block content that is considered "bad" by a large majority of most people in a country or market or whatever ...
>
> That can be a slippery slope, setting precedents that lead to granting those with large (monopoly-scale) market share 
> lending their power to majoritarian movements who want to exclude any dissenting views.
>
> But both of these focus in the wrong place, distracting us from the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that 
> the carriers of content are not in a position to define criminal behavior, or to judge it.
>
> Nor in most cases is control of the ability to speak the appropriate remedy for serious criminal acti0ns, carried out 
> by people, not the carriers.
>
> We have perfectly adequate laws about what behaviors people are allowed to do in our society, and mechanisms for 
> establishing, challenging, and amending those laws, for the most part (if you include civil disobedience as a final 
> way to challenge unjust laws, I should add, but that's another story)
>
> What's really great about the universality and openness of the Internet is that it can help enable law making and law 
> enforcement to communicate better, in order to do its proper job.
>
> THe US first amendment includes Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Assemble and Freedom of the Press.
>
> Freedom of the Press is acknowledged to be crucial to law making and just law enforcement (no secret laws, no secret 
> tribunals).
> The other two freedoms empower individuals to discuss and debate everyday actions, either privately or publicly.
>
> The rest of the US constitution (and other country's constititutions) carefully limits the powers of government, 
> institutions, and citizens. But the government is free to communicate to do its legitimate job. Its ability to 
> communicate is NOT suppressed. It is required to be *open*, not secret, for the most part, because it answers to the 
> people.
>
> THat's not true for communications among people. THey are not required to be open in their communications. That's 
> what "privacy" includes.
>
> So there are some very basic ideas here. One: actions are different from communicating. Two: the government and its 
> laws are to be focused on actions of people, not communications among people.
>
> This leaves us with a good frame for discussion. Under these constraints, how best to discover criminal actions, and 
> how best to police them.
>
> It seems quite obvious that the Internet's connectivity function (the ability to address messages anywhere, and the 
> general interconnection that will deliver those messages) is unrelated to all these areas where policing of just laws 
> is important.
>
> There are lots of ways the Internet's connectivity can help police the world. Sharing information widely is one of 
> them. Given the resources of the governments of the world, that information sharing is far more powerful than even 
> the most "Internet enabled" small movements. Focus on using it. Not on disconnecting everyone.
>
> > The dilemma of the dark web: protecting neo-Nazis and dissidents alike 
> > Anonymity network Tor has become a safe-space for white supremacists and paedophiles. Yet in nations where access to 
> > the net is curtailed, it’s a lifeline 
> > By Alex Hern 
> > Aug 23 2017 
> > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/23/dark-web-neo-nazis-tor-dissidents-white-supremacists-criminals-paedophile-rings
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170826172047:6B4374A6-8AA4-11E7-85A5-FD70B9C80947
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com