Will The SAFE Network be classified as a 'Dark Web'

Tor is classified as ‘Dark Web’ and we are assured by people involved with that project, that TOR will always be patched for vulnerabilities very quickly.

How? Well were told that the spooks actually rely on the TOR network for operations and so any vulnerabilities would affect National Security in effect.

So it would follow that .Gov would be actively contributing to the success of TOR. In general, I’m lead to believe that the military rely very heavily on open source software to build their systems…so that would gel.

I’m guessing they fork the software and run their own relay servers

So what we hear about .Gov being concerned about Dark Web might be cover, to some extent…except when there’s Bitcoin and weed on offer.

So when we question will .Gov be trying to take down SAFE, the above provides some context. In effect something much better than Tor will be available, but they wont find it anywhere near as easy to infiltrate the code as they do now?

So in summary .Gov gets rock solid protection and so does everyone else, which should mean SAFE gets a free pass and the spooks have to rely on all the other means they have to catch bad guys.

And there again, would they fork and use their own nodes?

So given the above, Privacy is coming and cant be eliminated…new paradigm…but may result in more Public surveillance to make up the shortfall in intelligence?

I think were all worried that ProjectSAFE will be infiltrated and watered down and it would probably be easier to legislate it down in effect…but maybe there has been a point of inevitability reached and the game has changed?

If we are headed for a breakdown of sovereignty and a more integrated governance model for the world (including currency) …a ProjectSAFE can facilitate may aspects of that. But then again, with all the independent movements, it sometimes has the appearance of going the other way.

So many questions and maybe not too far off for some answers…yay!


Integrated governance isn’t being created so that you can benefit from it, so ProjectSAFE definitively won’t be used for any of that “integrated governance” (in fact, global fascism) that they’re working on.

Personally I’m not worried about how they’ll classify the SAFE network (maybe because I’m not a US citizen, but I don’t care for decisions of my own government either).
I just care whether MaidSafe be released soon and deliver on more than 50% of its promises. As far as I’m concerned the US gov’t can classify it any way they want!

There are many projects working on anonymous secure file sharing. Not all are equally successful and have equally broad application, but none have been impacted by any US government “classification”. It’s a non issue.


Good on you, thats awesome.

It will be classified as a “New and Improved Internet”.

I’m more concern with, which people in the population, i’ll introduce to Maidsafe first. We have something in the Netherland called “voedselbank”, it’s a place that poor people goto to get food. Because they just don’t have enough money.

Now if I can get all the voedselbanks in the Netherlands to run Maidsafe, they can make some Safecoins. If they can get all the poor people that come to take food, to run Maidsafe, I think that might be a big step. To get people out of poverty.

I’m more concerned with things like that… I don’t really care about arogant people sitting in their office classifying stuff

Power to the peephole


This belongs to Strategy or Off-topic perhaps but for what it’s worth, that won’t and can’t get people out of poverty.
The foodbanks aren’t specialized for any sort of mining and can’t compete to get average or above average ROI.
You’d do better if you invested money in mining by yourself (or in some professional farm) and donated part of your earnings to food banks.

Isn’t that NSA’s motto?

1 Like

If governments declare this as a “New and Improved Internet” and implement, we’ll all be set for life I’d reckon :smile:

Arrogant, entrenched, powerful…that’s why it intrigues me how the lunatics will react when the penny drops.

Peephole?..haven’t heard that term in a while :slight_smile:

Just an introduction to Maidsafe, will allow them to keep close or open up doors, after they looked through the peephole.

Governments also need security and what better place to go to then Maidsafe. I invest in MaidSafecoin every chance that I get, I don’t care about prices.

Tell that to the Dark Wallet guys, who were railroaded and portrayed as terrorists by the BBC. Might be wise for the Maidsafe guys to stick to Russian Television stations, they dont seem to misrepresent their guests.

This thread discusses the issue on Reddit

This thread was posted by a guy that was present at the squat where the interview took place and has his own footage of the 2 days over which the interviews were conducted. He post a link to the full BBC Click program, which was edited out of the raw footage.


This video contains content from BBC Global News, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

But the YouTube channel contains many more videos from the same BBC series…but are not taken down for the same copyright infringement…shabby.

I know David Irvine has met the lead developer of Dark Wallet, maybe he can comment on his feel for the guy, but I did some research on him…and I get the feeling this ‘Dark Wallet’ project was set up, to be taken down just like this ie it feels like an op.

If you want to run a successful project, do you set up shop in a squat, parade around with 3D printed machine guns and draw attention to yourself by goading the authorities?


Well also the watchers of the gruesome video were portrayed as terrorists but nothing actually happened to them.
It’s not pleasant and doesn’t help with PR, but in reality also gives publicity.

You mean Cody Wilson? DarkWallet is in alpha, I’m watching their progress. They’re going to be fine.

In terms of practical consequences, I don’t think these are big concerns. No one is saying MaidSafe team members should go out and do “crazy” (in whose opinion?) stunts, but if they keep calm & keep coding, I am convinced the project won’t be derailed by the government.

What gruesome video are you talking about? There is no such video mentioned in this post

I didn’t want to be too explicit - I meant the beheading one. The UK gov’t (police) stated that merely watching the video constitutes a “terrorist offence” (e.g. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/james-foley-police-warn-watching-beheading-video-terrorist-offence-1461974).
But I haven’t seen any reports that any of those individuals got busted. My point is they couldn’t do anything about it - when “offenders” are many, all they can do is collect “metadata”. (For the record, I did not watch any of those videos, but I intend to make heavy use of MaidSafe).

I think you may have assumed something, rather than looking into the links I provided.

Worth reading if you haven’t already. When reports remarked that Google, among other large tech companies, were hacked by China - was the attack originating from elsewhere? I don’t have the slightest clue, but I do know that TOR would provide cover, and China would be a good launching point due to the world sentiments and the large amount of pirated Windows software in the country. A good mixture for a scapegoat.

I think a secret fork would be more likely. It would allow them to attack designs or algorithms of the network, which I think is harder to detect or see than direct code changes. I think this is why the payment system of SAFE is so critical; storage vaults and routing vaults can get paid to deliver information. Hopefully people can run these vaults without having deep funding from elsewhere (like with TOR exit nodes).

Categorization and classification isn’t consciously done. It’s a hive mind making sense of a confusing subject.

Safe Network runs on nodes, Tor runs on nodes. Distributed data, anonymizing. Tor… Safe Network… Dark Web…

While they’re not the same things, the buzzwords connect the content. So when simplifying the subject matter, they sound extremely similar. If MaidSafe is successful, it’s going to be called Dark Web 2.0 by news outlets because that’s the easiest way to understand it. It’s not malicious, it’s just catering to what people already understand and escalating it in a quick snippet.

Crime procedural television shows will integrate MaidSafe and write episodes about it, and they’ll be sensationalized and shed negative light on it because that’s how we extract drama from content.

The government has little-to-no control over public perception. The public’s digital hive mind is what creates an echo chamber of consensus. And assuming the average Joe connects the dots between Dark Web → Tor → Bitcoin → Safecoin → Safe Network, it’s a pretty safe bet it’ll be seen as an extension of the Dark Web. I’d bet 1000 Safecoins on it!

@janitor, I partly agree that it’s a non-issue, in that it’ll evolve how it evolves. But I also think that it’s possible for organizations to take the reigns on public perception and control the narrative. We can’t tame the ocean, but we can build breakwaters to calm it. A perfect example is Dark Market vs Open Bazaar. Dark Market will get more media attention because of the name, but Open Bazaar was a better choice.

EDIT: What I do find fascinating is that unlike a company, though, embarrassing public stunts and opinion hurt these things much less because there’s no CEO to degrade or owner to throw in the spotlight. The CEO of bitcoin isn’t going to have cocaine planted in his trunk.

@vtnerd Worth reading if you haven’t already.

Nice read, I’ve edited out the guts of it here for easy reading.

Roger Dingledine writes that the US Navy uses Tor for open source spying: TOR, called then the Onion Router.

Creators of TOR:

Why would any govt create something their enemies can easily use against them, then continue funding it once they know it helps the enemy, if a govt has absolutely no control over it? It’s that simple. It would seem a very bad idea. Stop looking at it from a conspiracy standpoint& consider it as a common sense question.

Because it helps the government as well. An anonymity network that only the US government uses is fairly useless. One that everyone uses is much more useful, and if your enemies use it as well that’s very good, because then they can’t cut off access without undoing their own work.

BINGO, we have a winner! The original QUESTION posed that led to the invention of Onion Routing was, “Can we build a system that allows for bi-directional communications over the Internet where the source and destination cannot be determined by a mid-point?” The PURPOSE was for DoD / Intelligence usage (open source intelligence gathering, covering of forward deployed assets, whatever).

Not helping dissidents in repressive countries. Not assisting criminals in covering their electronic tracks. Not helping bit-torrent users avoid MPAA/RIAA prosecution. Not giving a 10 year old a way to bypass an anti-porn filter.

Of course, we knew those would be other unavoidable uses for
the technology, but that was immaterial to the problem at hand we were trying to solve (and if those uses were going to give us more cover traffic to better hide what we wanted to use the network for, all the better…I once told a flag officer that much to his chagrin). I should know, I was the recipient of that question from David, and Paul was brought into the mix a few days later after I had sketched out a basic (flawed) design for the original Onion Routing.

The short answer to your question of “Why would the government do this?” is because it is in the best interests of some parts of the government to have this capability… Now enough of the conspiracy theories…

Following the publication of the email extract on TOR, I asked the EFF what they made of it:

It’s totally true that the military people who invented Tor were thinking about how to create a system that would protect military communications.

However, the Tor developers also became clear early on that the system wouldn’t protect military communications well unless it had a very diverse set of users.

In fact, the best known way we have right now to improve anonymity is to support more users, and more types of users.

No organization can build this infrastructure for its own sole use. If a single corporation or government agency were to build a private network to protect its operations, any connections entering or leaving that network would be obviously linkable to the controlling organization. The members and operations of that agency would be easier, not harder, to distinguish.

Thus, to provide anonymity to any of its users, the network must accept traffic from external users, so the various user groups can blend together.

However, this appears to be a giant evasion perhaps a subterfuge, even reminds of what Big Boys say when customers learn they are siphoning customer data. Read the privacy policy the lawyer-advised apologists bark, and upon reading the privacy policy see that it only emphasizes the subterfuge. Openly admitting siphoning is supposed to make it okay because everyone does it under cover of lockstep privacy policy. Reject that.

If the Tor operators really know what they are being used for, then they should admit to being agents of the USG, as Michael Reed had the guts to do.

Claiming this US spying role for Tor is well known is a crock of slop, but then spies lie all the time and care not a whit that they peddle shit for eaters of it. If you believe them and like what they do then don’t shilly-shally, just do what Michael Reed did but others are too ashamed to do after having been duped since 1996.

If Reed’s precedent for honesty is followed, there will be an
admission that the Internet was invented for spying by its inventor. And then cryptography and other comsec tools. And then cellphones and the like. Hold on now, this is getting out of hand, the apologists will bellow, everybody has always known that there is no privacy in digital world.

Actually, no, they did not. And those who knew keep their Janusian mouths writhing to reap the rewards of deception. Now that is a truth everyone knows. No conspiracy theory needed.

At the FC’97 rump session, Paul Syverson from NRL presented a paper titled “Onion Routing”. The description of the system sounds very much like Wei Dai’s PipeNet. However, the development team seems to be unaware of PipeNet and the discussions about it that we had in the past.

NLR has currently five machines implementing the protocol. Connection setup time is claimed to be 500 ms. They are looking for volunteers to run “Onion Routers”. It appears the US military wants to access websites without giving away the fact that they are accessing the sites and is looking to us to provide the cover traffic. What a fortunate situation.

What do you think of the “onion routing” approach from the group at Naval Postgraduate? How would compare it to this newest proposal?

Neither one of them is any good in its present form. The folks at the FC’97 rump session got to watch Jim and myself poke truck sized holes into the NRL design within seconds of them ending their presentation. :slight_smile:

Here was a US military research lab presenting a system they thought would give them a way to surf the Net anonymously by using the public for cover traffic. [Let me just spell out here that I believe that the people from NRL and Cypherpunks are on the same side on this issue. Their concern is COMSEC, not SIGINT.]

Anyway, we knew how to crack their system without even having to think about it, since folks on Cypherpunks, especially Wei Dai, had discovered various venues of attack on such systems long ago. Cypherpunks are teaching the military about traffic analysis. :slight_smile:

The one good thing about NRL is that they seem to be willing to learn. [The other being that they get paid to write our code for us.] Though I get the distinct feeling that they don’t like the required solution. There is simply no way to harden the system against attack without using a constant or at least slowly varying (I would guess we are talking about periods of several hours here, certainly not minutes, but I haven’t done the math, nor do I have the time to do so) bandwidth data stream between the end user and the first Onion Router. This will invariably require special software on the end user’s machine. I think the best design would be a client side proxy. [That much Crowds got right.]

As to Crowds, they got to be kidding. How many end users are willing to become, even without their direct knowledge, the last hop to ? I believe that relatively few users would want their IP address to be the one showing up in the server log of <enter seized machine’s name here> because their jondo happened to be the exit point chosen.

1 Like

That will be a good watch…do you think David Irvine will get a role…kind of a James Bond character…I’m imagining the open scene shot from a chopper, zooming in to his boat out in the ocean somewhere…probably a couple of chicks hanging of him and looking pretty sharp and well rested :slight_smile:

And again more motivation to work harder :smiley:


Good points all of them, except that I don’t know whether Open Bazaar is a better name.
If we could peek into alternate realities we would maybe find out.
What would happen in MaidSafe was named Maid-in-Fishnet-Tights? Who knows.
I estimate that any “negative narrative” would be offset by added interest from idle & curious prospects (see the 4chan stunt with that photoshopped nude picture; we can check the site’s ratings few weeks from now to see whether the negative PR stunt worked).