3 ms·
This is perhaps slightly off-topic, but a concern I've had with systems like IPFS and Dat is that they seem to harm privacy, because objects are not encrypted,
by TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
This is perhaps slightly off-topic, but a concern I've had with systems like IPFS and Dat is that they seem to harm privacy, because objects are not encrypted, and consequently also would among other things not be censorship-resistant, and be more likely to cause legal issues for an owner of a node which ends up holding illegal content involuntarily. Has there been any work in this regard?
- haarts 10y agoI've discussed this at some point in the IPFS IRC channel. Their line of reasoning was that you could just as easily host encrypted blobs on IPFS and be done with it. That somewhat appeals to me, encryption of content seems orthogonal to hosting it. It feels like the Unix dogma 'do one thing and do it well'.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoYou could do it yourself, but in 2017, I'm not sure optional DIY privacy and censorship-resistance is acceptable. It ought to be done transparently and automatically by the implementation. Encryption isn't slow, it wouldn't hurt performance or anything like that. Plus, if everything's encrypted, it doesn't attract attention to the people who appear to have something to hide. The model I have in mind would be what mega.co.nz does: store opaque ciphertexts, and distribute links containing the keys to said ciphertexts. So instead of a link to someproto://hash/ you'd link to someproto:://hash/decryptionkey/. And your IPS/Dat/whatever client would handle decryption for you.