we are discussing different issues here. One is the protocol, the other is the social infrastructure. The latter can be attacked in many ways and the most effective one is not a ban, but a discourse of missuse that makes everone who particpates suspicious or worse: a perpetrator. Its funny that you refer to China in comparison to the supposedly free world because as we know western states have used a much different policy to deal with whaever they call illegal or dangerous and that is mass surveilance. Currently it is sufficient to be logged in to a specific transmitting area eg during a manifestation to become target by surveilance on top of that. I am not arguing for that as you probably notice, I am just saying that tgis is the way protocols are currwntly dealt with. Yes they are controlled, they are not banned, because surveillance is a much more effective way. So while your point appears to be that the fact that until now western(?) states have nt targeted specific protocols this is far from true. They jjst didnt ban them because surveillance is a much more efficient way of dealing with it.
Also it seems that you (and others) argue against my point as if this was my personal concern about the system, which it is not. It is about discussing how a system like this will be treated politically once it catches fire. A scenario if you wish. Normative arguments are out of my interest.
Not against you as such, but since you raise some points of discussion, the discussion can seem like what you perceive. I did realise you are raising potential points that were not from personal motivation.
As to mass surveillance there have been a number of developments in messaging. For instance wickr provides an end-to-end encryption for messaging that does not store any keys on the server and the message boxes are not traceable to a person. They believe/claim that means mass surveillance is not feasible and that the likes f the NSA cannot make any use of it or the messages sent/received using their system. SAFE can boast similar in that no one knows what is stored or where it is stored. wickr uses the current internet and SAFE is building so much more and is its own network.
This would make wickr a perfect target for the very thing we are discussing and that is either a banning or a smear campaign to discredit it. Maybe the reason this has not happened is that politicians use wickr as much as or more than the general public. AU politicians reportedly used it in a leadership spill attempt and a senior minister did not hide the fact he and others used wickr to send messages to each others organising things.
It will be interesting to see how the general publicâs perception of SAFE will play out and if those with powers of influence (eg media, government) will find it too useful to smear of if they will promote it as the devilâs tool.
Why couldnât you store your search stats privately? Why does the world need to know your search stats? Why not build a search engine that adapts to YOU personally and becomes more accurate based on YOUR searches and preferences. This could be coupled with user preferences and filters to create even more accurate search results. Imagine something like Google but instead of a centralized corporation making the decisions for you to promote ad revenue itâs you making the decisions to promote your preferences and search accuracy. Moreover different search weighting could be used to search for different things. If youâre looking for art youâre not going to have the same search parameters that you would if youâre looking for credible news articles.
The context of my point was that in order to write and maintain a quality search engine, the programmer and designer needs to know which answers are âright answersâ and which answers are uninteresting and noise to their customers. They cannot do that without collecting data and measuring which links are followed and for how long etc.
Refusing to know or remember your customers and your previous transactions with them is bad business. That isnât just in the online world, that is everywhereâŚ
It really falls into the âit is what it isâ category. Privacy is certainly a concern, but there is pretty big trade-off to mandated amnesiaâŚ
Clearly SAFE network users are expected to be complete morons who simply canât help it - they somehow keep browsing all the worst SAFE Web sites that are unethical, immoral and totally illegal in their jurisdiction, completely unaware that their problems could be solved by simply installing the free SAFE Troopers DAO Censorship App".
During this ordeal not a single user realizes that this enormous issue can be solved by not visiting âunethicalâ sites.
Why does the programmer need to know what the ârightâ answer is? Itâs a search engine. Isnât the point for it to search and find answers? The ârightâ answer should be based on user preferences and input not on what the programmer believes is âright.â
Why does a business need to remember transactions? I give you cash and you give me product. There weâre done. Why does the business need to remember who the customer is or what they bought? Why do they even need to KNOW in the first place? At the end of the day check your inventory. You have x amount of red widgets and y amount of blue widgets. Track if the widgets left your business via sales or if they were stolen or rotated out for use in the business. Thatâs all you NEED to know. You might WANT to know more about your customers in order to develop statistics in order to promote sales but you donât NEED to know more in order to function as a business. If you WANT more information then perhaps one should incentivize customers to give them that information somehow.
I repeat why canât a search engineâs stats be stored privately and then a user can develop a custom search experience. No the search engine doesnât need to know everyoneâs search results and just like any business if it wants to know it should incentivize users to release that information.
I accept your point, but it does seem to miss the point of the OP. Not visiting sites does nothing to address the issue of illegal activity on the Network.[quote=âjanitor, post:67, topic:4020â]
their problems could be solved by simply installing the free SAFE Troopers DAO Censorship App".
[/quote]
Yes, in a way, this would be the answer, only it would be a âSAFE Troopers DAO Crime Reporting Appâ
Anybody could develop this App and interact with âauthoritiesâ upon seeing child porn or gun running etc. The âauthoritiesâ could have their own âSafe -sitesâ etc. The problem I see is around âjurisdictionâ, due to unknown geographical locations, but would work for the more major crimes that are more universally accepted as âcriminalâ.
The point is it is an app level thing, not a Network/protocol thing.
Thatâs the point of creating the network in the first place. Freedom, privacy, and security. No there is nothing that prevents illegal activity on the network, if there was one would know the network was neither free, nor secure, nor private.
Ah yes we create a whole new internet to escape censorship by the authorities and then there are a bunch of numb nuts that bring censorship and the authorities to SAFE. Brilliant! I suppose it is inevitable and additional precautions will have to be taken in order to ward against such things.
You also realize the opposite is also true: That SAFE will allow people to organize crime and vengence syndicates against those who are caught collaborating with the police and helping state enforcement. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I made no mention of censorship whatsoever, merely the reporting of serious crime. I think you may be confusing the arguments a bit tbh - unless your position is that the Network is designed specifically for criminal activity and all normal laws suddenly donât apply.[quote=âBlindsite2k, post:70, topic:4020â]
Brilliant! I suppose it is inevitable
[/quote]
Yes, both brilliant and inevitableâŚagreed.
Yes, by those abusing children or gun running etc.[quote=âBlindsite2k, post:70, topic:4020â]
You also realize the opposite is also true: That SAFE will allow people to organize crime and vengence syndicates against those who are caught collaborating with the police and helping state enforcement.
[/quote]
Well, yes, further crime can be committed and subsequently reported/investigated - crime can happen and it can be reported. There is a vast difference between âcensorshipâ and protecting the vulnerable; surely only some deeply sad sicko could ever describe efforts against the proliferation of images of the abuse and rape of children as âcensorship.â
Could be wrong but I see miscommunication on both your partsâŚthe unfortunate disadvantage of using words I guess.
We all seem to want similar things here and we will all get what we want with the SAFEnetwork.
Privacy and Security: DONE - at the core network level
Censorship and Filters: DONE - at the upper app level
Arrest and prosecution of criminals (by jurisdiction) - DONE - by that jurisdiction with good old fashion police work.
Iâm happy that SAFE helps to put the police back to work to protect the people again and not just control the people for corporate/government interest. Even if the police donât do their job, ostracizing is a very power tool at all our disposal.
In the end, people can always move if their jurisdiction does not align with their values.
It is obvious to me that criminal rings are a necessary, evil âcanary in the coal mine,â regardless of my own views on any particular form of criminality. That is, if they can persist on SAFE, despite the full weight of some task force comprising the NSA, FBI and police agencies in various countries, then ants who are only (hypothetically, just for the sake of argument, of course) guilty of, say, tax evasion, doubting the holocaust, or using rude words, any or which might land one in jail, can feel provisionally safe.
The business needs to know what products to provide.
Knowing what people like, what people donât like, how often they re-order etc is vital to having a competitve product portfolio. The need to know what to tweak, what not to tweak etc. Products donât get developed in ignorance of the market. They best products are made with the most insight into the customer.
Moreover you cannot legislate stupidity. If you interact, then the other party is a party and both parties inherently have memories. Thatâs nature. They have as much right to log their transactions and store them privately as you do⌠That is a freedom issueâŚ
People should be free to build a customer agnostic search engine and put it into the market. I suspect a ton of them have been made. They are not dominant because they are playing the game with one or both hands tied behind their backs. If you want to make a competitive product, doing so blindfolded is very very hard.
I agree and hope that an app developer would take off his blindfold long enough to read some post on this forum and gain the insight to see that the app that @Blindsite2k is suggesting is in very very high demand.
They are out there⌠I donât think they are winning though⌠They took the blindfold off long enough to know that the customer wanted a blindfolded search engine, but the fact that they are blindfolded inherently will put them at a disadvantage against those that continuously measure and analyze every detail of every transaction for improvement.
I have a grocery store down the road where they never recognize me even though I have lived in the neighborhood and frequented the place for 17 years⌠When a new grocery store opened, I frequent that one more, simply because it is more pleasant to be treated as person than a transaction.
SAFE is a paradigm shift. I think what worked in the old net will not be as successful in the new. The early adopters will be us (the ones who prefer to be treated as just a transaction in this context) and by the time Google stops laughing at us, maybe alternatives that cater to us will have enough of a head start, clientele and reputation to finally compete with the big boys. At least thatâs what Iâm hoping for.
By the way, thanks for that articleâŚgood to know stuff. Still gonna google everything though for that âpersonal touchâ; until Iâm on SAFE where I can do things entirely differently so that no one is touching me!
If a customer prefers to be tracked to increase customer performance or allow the business increased analytics is there a reason they couldnât CHOOSE to disclose that? Personally I prefer duckduckgo because it gives me more accurate search results and doesnât put me in a content bubble like Google does. If two people look something up on google theyâll get entirely different results. To me thatâs a negative rather than a possitive. Also if a business has stats to analyze they also have stats to disclose to the authorities much the way Google or Facebook do.
I donât see point in arguing. It is what it is. The inherent way of doing business since the advent of computers is to try to remember every transaction and every customer so far as possible. That is just a law of the market.
One can choose to market âwe donât do thatâ but the market of the paranoid isnât large enough to compensate for the lack of business intelligence that allows you to build a competitive an innovative product for the market. In order to do that, you need to know your market better than your competitors.
If you look at the search engines linked above you will find that several of them are plagerists of other search engines - and are really just an anonymizing proxy â And the rest nobody usesâŚ
Yes, I can disclose that I want my vendors to remember me. But by nature they already do. The default behavior of all human systems is to remember their histories. All parties remember all transactions. Forgetting is considered a bug. You cannot ban nature without being oppressive and tyranical. I can tell my vendors I want them to forget me. And they can pretend, or they can engineer in some amnesia. but amnesia is a really expensive feature that hurts your ability to compete the the broader context of the market.
It is what it is. There is no easy solution. Like I said in my original post it is a conundrum that isnât easily overcome - thus the natural way prevails.
