Pretty sure even the Russians would have ways to deactivate those codes (if they existed). And probably also ways to refuse to launch on them. But anyhow…
Let’s say he’s known to be mentally unstable and/or so religious that he doesn’t care if he lives or dies. He thinks he’ll go to heaven anyway. Let’s say he demands the removal of a sinful picture from the network, or he will blow up the world.
Say he demands that the network be shut down completely. Say that he demands that a censorship mechanism be added to the network, since it doesn’t have one already (you have a month… hope you can hit that schedule). Say he demands that that picture come down and he doesn’t care that the network does not have any way to do that. Say he demands that an existing censorship mechanism be removed from the network. Say he’s flipped a coin and not told you the result, but heads he fires the nukes if the picture comes down, and tails he fires the nukes if the picture does not come down.
The point being that if you’re allowed to use crazy counterfactual scenarios without regard for their probability, then you can make literally any decision be the “right” one.
I don’t know about probability, but such a demand could certainly be made by a person combining Osama bin Laden-crazy and Putin-power.
So do you or do you not think consensus could be reached in the above scenario? Or is the demand so crazy that consensus would not be reached?
EDIT: Please note that Putin and Russia are just random examples. Pick any godlike ruler from history - Roman, Egyptian, Aztec…
EDIT 2: I prefer these rather fantastic examples to descriptions of what e.g. cartels actually do to people.
Which means people like centralization.
I think it is important goal to show them that decentralization have its benefits.
By the way, decentralized method for downloading client of decentralized network looks like perfect match.
Exactly that, so concerns of agencies / bodies trying to force other moderation are really not warranted, because ppl can choose to not subscribe to them.
I always thought id not filter anything, but will be glad of a way to filter csam and would definately be on board with not helping share it.
The problem is the possibility is there for other types of moderation/censorship if enough nodes are compromised.
How would the community corroborate content placed on the list? Would they be expected to view the content to confirm? If so would you still be happy to filter the content @bones or would you leave it to a third party. If you are leaving it to a third party can you see why the concerns start to arise?
I think there are AI programs to catch this stuff on a massive scale used even by your friendly neighborhood adult sites so having access to something such as that and open source would be a meaningful and less traumatizing way of confirming such content. Just my take.
In fact that industry would probably be an essential or at least immensely helpful contributor to flagging.
I agree 100% here. I’ve been pondering this most of the night … I’d go further to say that the download client is where it is best suited. A hacked uploader would simply bypass any filtering. A hacked downloader would most likely be willing to see what they want. Node level filtering though is demanding too much of the nodes and the complexity here is going to be more than people expect I think.
If client download side only then all the apps in the appstores are going to be happy as they will know that all SN download apps are filtering out the censored stuff. There are no other ways to really guarantee this I suspect and that’s going to be the real bottleneck for SN - getting the app into major marketplaces.
I think, in the end this way is the least offensive option as the data is still there, the network isn’t seen to be compromising in any way. And those determined to gain full access will find a way to do so - likely an app on the network itself.
It’s a strange side of a discussion to be on for me this as it feels I am in some way supporting CSAM on the network which I am obviously not. However I am fully aware that it will be there, as will all the other depravity that exists on the current system. If these sick people want to make/distribute/view such things they are going to find a way no matter what obstacles are placed in the way. Altering or adding to the original ideas of the network now when these problems have been known from the start is frustrating.
Don’t think that. it’s a valid counter argument you are making.
This is the issue, these problems we now face were not known at the start. The world has moved on and not necessarily in a good way. What I mean is there is worse content now and government reaction is not great.
I agree the world is definitely in decline but I must say to think that there would be no government backlash from creating this network seems a bit naive. One of my first topics back in 2018 was about the potential threat of government to this project.
So are maidsafe taking the responsibility of trying to sort the problem of its own accord or is it more to do with the potential threat of government action?
It would be and we always expected something. The Scottish gov offered me a safe place to code this due to potential threats. Now it’s much worse.
No, we are looking to help the future of the network, so ensuring we are at least ticking boxes but also to see if there is a real value add here. Or is this just gonna be a big fight we need to take on board. Either way, we need to have this conversation.
I must say I don’t envy the situation you and the team are in and the decisions you all have to make.
If the value can be added without any compromise of course it should be done but I am not technical enough to know if it can be done. Reading the comments it looks like neo is maybe on to something. My guess is though it might be time to glove up
Unfortunately, you can’t really go on offense against the State - you can only go into hiding.
Work-arounds are the best option at this point. Once the network is launched the possibilities for it can be opened up. But getting to a solid launch has to be the focus, as no matter the apparent level of appeasement, there will always be a way to achieve the original dream so long as we have a network.
Before addressing the points this point must be understood that it cannot be denied and allows better scope than thinking the Safe network is Nodes (full stop)
The client and Nodes make up the network. They need each other to operate so implementing at the client is implementing it into Safe
Filtering Up & down can be implemented with the least effort in the client, the client is the right layer to do it, and easiest for the user to abide by the laws of their country. Yes clients become country specific by virtue of the list being used. Node function is not changed, no need for special clauses in the code that allows greater attack vectors and bug issues.
Only if requirements to operate require it.
if at the client then requirements are low
if at the node then the requirements are around if the network can even exist
So at the client is the obvious choice since this allows for those who wish it to have it implemented without destroying the network nor give up any privacy.
At the client level on the user’s PC where the file exists as a whole. Since the client does so much work for the network (eg DBC, self encryption, etc) the client is considered as an essential and actual part of the network, same as elders are essential. No client no network, no elder no network, etc
If at the client then no loss. The user is responsible to follow the laws of their country and can ensure the client does what they wish it to do.
if at the node then definitely will have legislation require the implementation of lists (plural) to censor that material, copyright material, political censorship. Australia would definitely do it.
.
If at the client then yes, the file is hashed using the hash algo the list is done with
If at the node, then it CANNOT work even if technically made to work - Reason is that there is NO list of hashes suitable for nodes. Nodes know the hashes for self encryption which is completely different to the hash lists used by the International Police and authorities.
The requirement would be that a Maidsafe staff gets certified to work with the material
The staffer then gets given all the files/images/etc to self encrypt to create chunks so that a List of chunk hashes can be used.
Lets be real that is never going to happen.
The authorities and certain organisations that deal with the material. So CSA will be handled by the organisations and fed to the international police to send the lists to the relevant people who have to implement the lists. eg filter makers. And the authorities will include their *special* material and of course like in Australia would have the copyright content hashes included.
Not under the original goals unless implemented at the client and leave it to the user to finally be responsible for using the client.
Additional: Governments will legislate that Safe has their version of the list which will include political, copyright, horrific hashes. If at the client then that is not only feasible but leaves the responsibility to the user who has the responsibility anyhow. At the Node then mayhem ensures.
At the Node then where the node is located will determine the list their government legislates be implemented. Not to use the list is potential criminal action by the Node operator. So then consensus is moot since each node will reject its version of the list. Thus means the Node operator could be violating their law because the other nodes say OK
Bottom line
The client and Nodes make up the network. They need each other to operate so implementing at the client is implementing it into Safe
Actually for decades they have used their own encrypted networks and I doubt they would even trust Safe for years. They’ll see it as a honeypot. In anycase for decades the police get someone accepted into their ring and then break it open from the inside with tons of evidence.
Censorship on Safe will only stop the accidental and idiots who try looking for it.
There was a recording in the early 2000’ where the copyright people were talking about talking up the CSA on the net so they can get greater filtering of the net implemented (they tried in Australia) and of course include their content into the filtering.
I believe this is all around the foundation and Maidsafe. Swiss regulations is way better than UK, but they still require minimal requirements.
How is the content worse now? Do you mean the cameras used to film “horrendous” stuff have gotten better? Or that people are being crucified in worse ways now than they used to?
They gave you a piece of paper with a rubber stamp, and you believed them?
Do you think Snowden is safe in Russia because they promised him asylum too?
clears up concern. So just want to bump it.
