Thoughts on the dangers of undeletable data?

[Impacatus]

So, now that my question about the possibility of data loss has been addressed, I would like to discuss the opposite concern.

If data on this network is permanent, unable to be deleted even by the person who put it up, that’s potentially dangerous. Child porn, revenge porn, libel, personal details of unpopular public figures will all stay up forever.

Sure, once the links are removed the content is as good as deleted, but if the links are attached to something valuable, like a social network, we might not even be able to remove the links.

I’m not saying this is a reason why the project shouldn’t go ahead, but it is something we can expect to see. What are your thoughts on this?

[neo]

The reason chunks cannot be deleted is that the network has no way to know if datamaps have been shared and so the original uploader very well may not be the only one with that “file” (datamap)

The amount of extremely bad content will be far outweighed by the good and reasonable content.

Do we shut down the internet because there are a few who trade this vile material and reasonably self evident that it will never be completely deleted either.

[Impacatus]

I understand why chunks can’t be deleted, and I agree it will be a good thing more often than not. But it’s a potential publicity issue that we have to be prepared to deal with. It’s also possibly a design issue, in that safenetwork services may need to have countermeasures to make sure they don’t end up hosting such content.

Believe me, I’m not in favor of deleting data lightly. One of the biggest appeals about the SAFE network to me is that the potential it creates for our data to survive to be studied by future historians. But we’re talking about total data anarchy, and while there are many exciting opportunities in that, let’s not pretend there aren’t dangers too.

[DavidMc0]

I see it as a necessary feature that’ll be used for good and bad.

It’s not possible to enable it for those fighting to expose corruption & oppression, but not for those who want to do vile things.

I guess even now with the internet, once any ‘cat is out of the bag’ it’s near impossible to get rid of something that’s been published. On Safe, it’ll actually be impossible, which will sometimes be good, and sometimes bad.

Those looking to do vile things with enough determination can already pretty much do this, so at least Safe makes the tech more accessible to individuals wanting to use it for good.

I hope the good outweighs the bad, but the tech is coming either way.

[neo]

@Impacatus

But it’s a potential publicity issue

We already have a massive topic on that and subsequent followup topic. If you wanted to discuss the PR aspect then use that topic, otherwise we end up seeing it all rehashed here.

@Impacatus

But we’re talking about total data anarchy,

As soon as you introduce censorship which is what allowing other people to delete data is, even if its the worst kind, because the same mechanism can be applied to good data too. Freedom for all also includes freedom for well um all

There are dangers with most technology and nothing will be stored on SAFE that isn’t already being stored on the current internet or shared through P2P or stored in “unreachable” servers now.

SAFE will just be another storage mechanism as far as teh crocks are concerned. The police will still be able to capture them as they do now. The smarter crooks already have the tools to encrypt their data as good as SAFE. So the police use good old detective work, and capture them as the crooks interface with the real world, the police infiltrate their groups and exposed them from the inside out.

[Impacatus]

Look, I am not saying that SAFE network shouldn’t work the way it’s going to. Period. I am not in any way advocating any change to the planned protocol. You do not need to justify it to me.

All I want is a frank discussion of the topic, where we confront the worst aspects of the new technology and speculate on what we can do to adapt.

[neo]

@Impacatus

Look, I am not saying that SAFE network shouldn’t work the way it’s going to. Period. I am not in any way advocating any change to the planned protocol. You do not need to justify it to me.

Yes I know. I was just explaining why for others and just in case you hadn’t thought of something. Sorry if it appeared I was saying you thought otherwise.

@Impacatus

All I want is a frank discussion of the topic, where we confront the worst aspects of the new technology and speculate on what we can do to adapt.

Yes, there have been a couple of huge topics already

And there is one left open for continuing discussions on the PR

@neo

We already have a massive topic on that and subsequent followup topic. If you wanted to discuss the PR aspect then use that topic, otherwise we end up seeing it all rehashed here.

[Impacatus]

Ok. Can you link those discussions, please?

[neo]

looking for you.

I am using the search feature of the forum

EDIT:

https://forum.autonomi.community/t/what-if-i-dont-want-to-store-child-porn/4306

And you can continue discussions in the following topic which is broad discussions about the responsibilities and PR impact of illegal material on SAFE
https://forum.autonomi.community/t/recent-questions-about-safes-societal-implications/7146

[Impacatus]

Thanks. It’s hard to use the search function if you don’t know what you’re looking for. You had seen the threads, so you knew what unique keywords had been used in them. I haven’t and didn’t. Using generic search terms like “publicity” just brings up a ton of irrelevant results.

[janitor]

Whatever you are looking for, first search for “porn”.
That always works for me.

[bluebird]

@Neo, if SAFE works as advertised, there won’t be police the way we understand the term. There won’t be a state, as we understand the term.

We are, perhaps, approaching an historical disjunction, a kind of wall, which is not-quite opaque and not totally sound-proof. I can hear distant screams and shouts of panic and anger from the other side, and what sounds like gunfire.

[neo]

@bluebird

@Neo, if SAFE works as advertised, there won’t be police the way we understand the term. There won’t be a state, as we understand the term.

Everything happens in steps. And I doubt you can predict just how things will be in a truly free (information) society after 50 Years.

But yes the control freaks out there who help each other into positions of power will find that foundation crumbling while they scream anarchy, doom, evil, etc and the masses start living the lives we were all meant to have.

[bluebird]

@neo

And I doubt you can predict just how things will be in a truly free (information) society after 50 Years

I can’t predict the details, but maybe I can predict the limits: how far things can go in the absence of some law of physics to stop them, and trends determined by economics.

I can predict with fair confidence that 50 years is an absurdly long perspective, by looking at the recent decades, and noting that the “steps” you mention are coming closer together.

There will be no state, and it won’t take 50 years.

[EDIT]
One other thing:

@neo

So the police use good old detective work, and capture them as the crooks interface with the real world, the police infiltrate their groups and exposed them from the inside out.

True, but note that “the edge” of a successful, virtualizing technology gets built out over time - it expands to engulf territory that previously was high-and-dry in “the real world.”

Example: Bitcoin, at one time mainly of use as an in-game currency at Mt. Gox, difficult to exchange into any other form, is now used to buy at large online retailers and to pay for meals at your local cafe.

Assuming that Bitcoin continues to be used (and I think it will, thanks to Blockstream, and regardless of some upset people) then it will, perhaps in conjunction with banking within SAFE, become a settlement mechanism by which wealthy people can transact most of their financial dealings away from the non-virtual edges, those interfaces where the state officials lurk.

You see, it’s at the edges where there is user pain, which prompts both geeks and greed-heads to dream up ways to alleviate that pain and absorb those edges into the virtual network, like the tide coming in.

Consider darknet markets. They haven’t come anywhere near their potential because their lifespans are so short, due to the shaky security they enjoy on Tor, and even that security had to largely be built by their internal, hired developers. With stronger security baked into the network, and increased staying power, such markets would attract supplemental services such as shipping and banking. For example, I’m thinking that Seneca’s Clikes might just end up being used in ways that their creator never imagined: a web of trust might be a dud in a SAFE version of Reddit, but a killer-app for trusting service providers, such as delivery services for illegal goods who need to be trusted to deliver goods in a verifiable way (signed-for) with no questions asked, perhaps even insured and bonded.

[neo]

You forget the vile crimes we talk of involve abusing actual people, so that is what I am talking of. Like right now. And SAFE provides them NO advances in the encryption and “secret” networks they have now. So for the police its business as usual. Obviously the dumb low hanging criminals may gain some advantage, but they will shot themselves in the foot anyhow, so not really an advantage.

What you say has truth in it but lost sight of the problem.

Also the steps I talked of was in line with your discussion. The problem as presented is the short term, and always has been.

Why short term? Because once SAFE is adopted as the default network the PR is not an issue for SAFE itself but focused on the ones it always should be the Criminals.

[Blindsite2k]

@neo

Why short term? Because once SAFE is adopted as the default network the PR is not an issue for SAFE itself but focused on the ones it always should be the Criminals.

How can there be crime if there is no state? There can be antisocial behaviour but even what is considered antisocial is largely subjective.

[neo]

@Blindsite2k

How can there be crime if there is no state? There can be antisocial behaviour but even what is considered antisocial is largely subjective.

Surely crime is more than that defined by the state. Even when we are entirely free there will be some society, community(s). Or do you propose that deliberate murder is just going to be classed as “antisocial” and the person be told to consider what they did and its antisocial behaviour?

Honestly it will take a lot more than just SAFE to bring about the down fall of the state. It will take people using information/financial freedom, it will take people writing the APPs etc.

Infrastructure still needs to be built and that takes organisation, rules to prevent antisocial people from absconding with the material, the medium of exchange, using gun to empty the project’s wallet.

I do not know how “society” will look like when everyone is able to be free

Obviously I am talking of the next 50 years. Hopefully it will be freer than the world was in my last 50 odd years

Anyhow this is heading off topic and is as much my fault as any ones.

[Blindsite2k]

@neo

Surely crime is more than that defined by the state. Even when we are entirely free there will be some society, community(s). Or do you propose that deliberate murder is just going to be classed as “antisocial” and the person be told to consider what they did and its antisocial behaviour?

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
~ Voltaire.

[ben1]

Thoughts? Here you go…

The ability to moderate anonymously publicized material protects privacy. Maidsafe in its current form has no mechanism towards moderating anonymously published material. As such, I, for one, will not use or support maidsafe if it goes ahead in its current form.

Alternative: Every public put should be tied to a user’s public identity.

What about anonymity? Anonymity would still be possible. Example: I create a website where users can create anonymous user names and passwords. My public identity is the proxy for their publicly uploaded content. As such, I get to moderate what is posted in my name. Very much like this forum, in fact. Here we all are, posting anonymously while the project as a whole is associated with the public identity of dirvine.

Maidsafe claims to be for freedom and privacy? Well, I am free to not have my private information publicized permanently for the whole world to see. I am free to depublicize content that I own that I do not want to be public.

[neo]

@ben1

The ability to moderate anonymously publicized material protects privacy. Maidsafe in its current form has no mechanism towards moderating anonymously published material. As such, I, for one, will not use or support maidsafe if it goes ahead in its current form.

In other words censorship in its most basic forum. Remove from viewing anything some “authority” deems necessary to be removed. No matter what mechanism you use that becomes the authority. Then its only a matter for any group with enough power to shape the content for their viewpoint.[quote=“ben1, post:19, topic:8624”]
Alternative: Every public put should be tied to a user’s public identity.
[/quote]

Bye bye anonymity

@ben1

What about anonymity? Anonymity would still be possible. Example: I create a website where users can create anonymous user names and passwords. My public identity is the proxy for their publicly uploaded content. As such, I get to moderate what is posted in my name.

So then you become the censorship authority and can either be bought to censor in another’s favor or be taken over by some pressure group/government to censor.

Also your website logs ties back to those who used it.

@ben1

Maidsafe claims to be for freedom and privacy? Well, I am free to not have my private information publicized permanently for the whole world to see. I am free to depublicize content that I own that I do not want to be public.

Not true freedom. Just being able to do something is not freedom, if it can be prevented. Your content can be removed within seconds if a program is built by the censors to remove it immediately

You maybe free to publicise something, but not free to have it remain. It can be deleted. So then are you really free?

Its like saying “I am free to move” but you are tied and bound, but free to move a couple of mm back n forth. You are free to upload the content, but its removed. How long before its removed is like how far in your bounds can you move.