9 ms·

We can’t let the dark web give online anonymity a bad name

103 points by tzury 9y ago

m52go 9y ago
Right now it's the "dark web." Tomorrow it'll be the "decentralized web." The world's always been full of dirty things, but holding everyone's freedom random for "protection" was usually not the way we operated.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  You've undersold the problem. The way we operated was to issue warrants. But now these dirty things operate in more and more virtual and less and less physical ways. So the old tools aren't working like they used to, and people are looking for ways that do work.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Start by not calling it "the dark web".
- 13of40 9y ago
  Maybe throw up two instances of it, with one dedicated to drugs, hitmen, and child pornography and the other for political discussions or whatever.
  - krapp 9y ago
    You can't legally dedicate a network to illegal activity, and even if you could, criminals would probably never go near it.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      I assume that was sarcasm
      - 13of40 9y ago
        Yep
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Powerofmene 9y ago
Anonymity is a good thing if you have a tech savvy abusive ex as a good friend of mine does. He has tracked her time and time again until she found a mentor to help her hide on the web. It certainly opened my eyes to legitimate uses of the dark web. It is not just a place for shady characters anymore.
- joekrill 9y ago
  I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Just because something can be abused for nefarious purposes doesn't mean we should ban it or abandon it. People use cars to kill people -- perhaps we should ban those? People use binoculars to violate privacy -- maybe we should ban those, too?
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    I am not suggesting we ban anything. What I was saying is that while being able to conduct ourselves on the web (and be tracked and all that goes with that) is fine for many, actually most, people; for some it is not. I am not suggesting banning the dark web either as it is a better way for some to have access to places they otherwise would not because they are being tracked by someone intent on harming them. Or more simply put, people should be able to access the Internet or the dark web if that is the choice they make....no need to presume they are doing something wrong if they choose the anonymous one.
    - joekrill 9y ago
      Ah ok I guess I misunderstood your comment. Though, to be honest, I still don't quite understand what you were getting at. :$
- iaoshd 9y ago
  This brings to mind something that has fascinated me recently (and probably applied to your friend's situation). Social networks need to be more open when it comes to how blocking people works and what information they have that allows the network to draw connections between you. If they aren't they're going to suffer. My situation is that after blocking someone on Facebook I got recommended to follow them on Instagram (they were not in my address book on my phone and I haven't shared this with Instagram so the only way I can see Instagram having the info that we even knew each other is from it's parent company). I'm sure the other person probably got the reverse recommendation - something I obviously don't want. I've also had family members of people that I blocked (along with blocking all mutual connections) recommended to me years later. It may not seem like a big deal but depending on your reasons for blocking people or avoiding them online it could be distressing for some. It did however make me seriously consider deleting my account once and for all (in the end I just locked all social media down even further). My personal experience made me think a little about how things have changed. In the past if you ended any kind of relationship (even non-romantic) you could simply choose to not see that person anymore and possibly go the rest of your life without bumping into them or hearing about them. Now, it is a gargantuan and almost impossible task. Like in the case of your friend it can be potentially dangerous but even in more basic cases it can be a mental burden and impossible (or very difficult) to draw a line under someone and move on. I'm rambling a little now but I'd be interested to know if anyone had research or articles they know of discussing this change in society and it's impact on people's wellbeing. I know it's been documented that social media can have a negative impact on mental health so I'd be curious to know if what I've discussed above is a significant factor in that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
I dislike how they immediately lump "hackers, drugs and porn" together as bad things. Hackers and others within that category are great. Thanks to hackers you can get full access to devices that would otherwise be locked down. Thanks to hackers you can take full control of your media content, playing it without constraints and on any device. Drugs are a huge market, let's tax it. Most people buying drugs are likely harmless members of society. We're wasting time and money chasing down buyers, sellers, and service managers. There's an absurd amount of people in jail for engaging in fully benign activities. Porn is a huge industry which pretty much everyone likes. A few rotten apples don't mean you have a rotten tree. Oh, we also waste a lot of money chasing down prostitutes and the like. I'm sure many sex workers would love to continue what they're doing without having to worry about the risk of cops showing up.
- JulianMorrison 9y ago
  The porn that's a bad thing is child porn, rape porn, and violence porn.
  - JupiterMoon 9y ago
    Really none of these should be called porn+. They are various forms of abuse imagery and are both crimes and evidence of crimes. + (Assuming the rape and violence are real not just actors)
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      In a few years lots of the edgier stuff will just be very realistic computer-generated imagery, but I expect the puritans will be making the same argument? In fact, even if the government set up some sort of bureau of approved CP (maybe they would enforce that all legal CP could be built from source?) lots of people would still want it outlawed...
      - alsetmusic 9y ago
        > In a few years lots of the edgier stuff will just be very realistic computer-generated imagery, but I expect the puritans will be making the same argument? In fact, even if the government set up some sort of bureau of approved CP (maybe they would enforce that all legal CP could be built from source?) lots of people would still want it outlawed... I lack a citation, but I believe even mock child porn is already illegal in the US.
k-mcgrady 9y ago
>> The dark web showcases the worst parts of the internet Are there any useful websites on the 'dark web'? I'm thinking of the kind of things we hundreds of millions use every day that are legal (social networks, email, youtube, etc.). If so why aren't more people using them? And if not that seems like the easiest way to change the image of the 'dark web' and bring more regular people on to it.
- r3bl 9y ago
  Facebook? DuckDuckGo?
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    My idea was more of a site like Facebook but ONLY available over TOR. Something people want/need to use and TOR is the only access method.
    - wolfgke 9y ago
      > My idea was more of a site like Facebook but ONLY available over TOR. Something people want/need to use and TOR is the only access method. Silk Road ;-)
- 13of40 9y ago
  I haven't tried TOR for some time, but when I did, it was about an order of magnitude slower and less reliable than a regular internet connection. It's not something like SSL that you can just turn on and get decent privacy for relatively little cost. If you wanted to order a pizza or shop for car parts, it wouldn't make sense to do it over a slow connection for anonymity you don't need.
  - hellbanner 9y ago
    You're right, for the individual. TOR's site actually recommends using TOR no matter who you are, in order to provide cover for people you might care about who are in danger of being attacked from using TOR eg. activists
nitwit005 9y ago
These media spin terms get tiring. Saying you need a special way to log into a website is too boring, so they call it "The Dark Web". People saying lewd things in chatrooms is uninteresting, so it becomes "Virtual Rape". I just end up having to explain to my older relatives that it's nonsense when they ask me about it.
- krapp 9y ago
  I don't believe the mainstream media invented the term "dark web." Blame computer scientists and tech culture for that.
  - jackewiehose 9y ago
    I blame the governments. They admittedly don't like people talking privatly.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      You know Tor is a US Navy project that still gets a large portion of its funding from the US Government, right? If you're going to talk about something a broad as the system of government, there needs to be some nuance and specificity in your statements.
      - jackewiehose 9y ago
        No, I didn't know that. Thanks to the US Navy. I just expressed my personal perception. I see politicians talking about, that the government should be able to decipher whatsapp etc. They probably don't like tor either.
        openasocket 9y ago
        I wouldn't worry about it too much. I've yet to see any US politician make a serious case for making non-backdoored encryption illegal, or banning Tor. A couple people have mentioned the idea, but no one's proposed legislation or anything like that.
finnthehuman 9y ago
The dark web doesn't give online anonymity a bad name. Charlatans use the dark web to advance their goal of branding anonymity as bad. Clickbait hot take bloggers, "journalists" who should know better, and other useful idiots are all more than willing to assassinate character and tear down something they don't care about if it confers a benefit to themselves (attention, status, ad impressions, etc...). Those are the bigger problem. Not the "dark web." It's nice that this author is making the principled case for anonymity. But that should be secondary to showing people the bigger picture, and how to "smell out" when they're being mislead for someone's myopic goals.
- slededit 9y ago
  I don't see how pointing this out helps advance the goal of web anonymity. Unless you are suggesting we somehow find a way to change human nature.
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    It helps us see through the deceptive arguments against anonymity. You don't think that's helpful?
    - slededit 9y ago
      Not really, no. While logically inconsistent the form of rhetoric used appeals to humans which are behaviorally dominated by group association. Pointing out its logical inconsistency appeals to a very small subset of the population who probably already agree with you.
      - alphapapa 9y ago
        What a cynical, defeatist attitude. The Internet is full of people, and you don't know who reads what. Everyone has to learn somewhere, to start from something. Your logic essentially is, "No one can learn anything; their opinions are fixed," but that's obviously false, as we have all learned or else we would be unable to read and write and do everything else we do. In fact, your posting your own comment contradicts your logic, as according to it, there's no point to saying what you said, since it can't change anyone's mind.
jszymborski 9y ago
A good start is calling it something other than the "dark web"...
jancsika 9y ago
Here's a solution to the "bad name" problem. Let's call it the Debian "Words of Encouragement" messaging app. Its purpose is to allow Debian members to send short, pithy words of encouragement to each other to spread goodwill through the universe. Here's how to build it: 1. Fork Bitmessage. 2. Have the client fetch the Debian strong set at startup. Only those keyholders may send and receive messages. 3. Limit it to one fixed-size message per day, to be sent at a pre-determined time. 4. If no message is in the queue, either send an acknowledgment of receipt for the last message or a randomly generated message. 5. Repeat forever. Now you've got a private information retrieval system that has no scaling problems, no Sybil attacks, and essentially no bad actors. (Or if a bad actor happen to materialize, well, they just signed their bad act with a key that someone in the Debian ecosystem should be able to tie to a human identity if it came to that.) And you don't have to worry about giving it an approachable UX because Debian devs don't care about that shit. Boom-- state-of-the-art decentralized messaging service that whose anonymity and metadata-mining resistance scales with Debian's own interest in granting its developerbase anonymity.
- corndoge 9y ago
  a key that someone should in the Debian ecosystem should be able to tie to a human identity anonymous Not sure I follow

103 points by tzury 9y ago

Right now it's the "dark web." Tomorrow it'll be the "decentralized web." The world's always been full of dirty things, but holding everyone's freedom random for "protection" was usually not the way we operated.

paulddraper 9y ago
You've undersold the problem. The way we operated was to issue warrants. But now these dirty things operate in more and more virtual and less and less physical ways. So the old tools aren't working like they used to, and people are looking for ways that do work.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

Start by not calling it "the dark web".

13of40 9y ago
Maybe throw up two instances of it, with one dedicated to drugs, hitmen, and child pornography and the other for political discussions or whatever.
- krapp 9y ago
  You can't legally dedicate a network to illegal activity, and even if you could, criminals would probably never go near it.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    I assume that was sarcasm
    - 13of40 9y ago
      Yep
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Powerofmene 9y ago

Anonymity is a good thing if you have a tech savvy abusive ex as a good friend of mine does. He has tracked her time and time again until she found a mentor to help her hide on the web. It certainly opened my eyes to legitimate uses of the dark web. It is not just a place for shady characters anymore.

joekrill 9y ago
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Just because something can be abused for nefarious purposes doesn't mean we should ban it or abandon it. People use cars to kill people -- perhaps we should ban those? People use binoculars to violate privacy -- maybe we should ban those, too?
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  I am not suggesting we ban anything. What I was saying is that while being able to conduct ourselves on the web (and be tracked and all that goes with that) is fine for many, actually most, people; for some it is not. I am not suggesting banning the dark web either as it is a better way for some to have access to places they otherwise would not because they are being tracked by someone intent on harming them. Or more simply put, people should be able to access the Internet or the dark web if that is the choice they make....no need to presume they are doing something wrong if they choose the anonymous one.
  - joekrill 9y ago
    Ah ok I guess I misunderstood your comment. Though, to be honest, I still don't quite understand what you were getting at. :$
iaoshd 9y ago
This brings to mind something that has fascinated me recently (and probably applied to your friend's situation). Social networks need to be more open when it comes to how blocking people works and what information they have that allows the network to draw connections between you. If they aren't they're going to suffer. My situation is that after blocking someone on Facebook I got recommended to follow them on Instagram (they were not in my address book on my phone and I haven't shared this with Instagram so the only way I can see Instagram having the info that we even knew each other is from it's parent company). I'm sure the other person probably got the reverse recommendation - something I obviously don't want. I've also had family members of people that I blocked (along with blocking all mutual connections) recommended to me years later. It may not seem like a big deal but depending on your reasons for blocking people or avoiding them online it could be distressing for some. It did however make me seriously consider deleting my account once and for all (in the end I just locked all social media down even further). My personal experience made me think a little about how things have changed. In the past if you ended any kind of relationship (even non-romantic) you could simply choose to not see that person anymore and possibly go the rest of your life without bumping into them or hearing about them. Now, it is a gargantuan and almost impossible task. Like in the case of your friend it can be potentially dangerous but even in more basic cases it can be a mental burden and impossible (or very difficult) to draw a line under someone and move on. I'm rambling a little now but I'd be interested to know if anyone had research or articles they know of discussing this change in society and it's impact on people's wellbeing. I know it's been documented that social media can have a negative impact on mental health so I'd be curious to know if what I've discussed above is a significant factor in that.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TheAceOfHearts 9y ago

I dislike how they immediately lump "hackers, drugs and porn" together as bad things. Hackers and others within that category are great. Thanks to hackers you can get full access to devices that would otherwise be locked down. Thanks to hackers you can take full control of your media content, playing it without constraints and on any device. Drugs are a huge market, let's tax it. Most people buying drugs are likely harmless members of society. We're wasting time and money chasing down buyers, sellers, and service managers. There's an absurd amount of people in jail for engaging in fully benign activities. Porn is a huge industry which pretty much everyone likes. A few rotten apples don't mean you have a rotten tree. Oh, we also waste a lot of money chasing down prostitutes and the like. I'm sure many sex workers would love to continue what they're doing without having to worry about the risk of cops showing up.

JulianMorrison 9y ago
The porn that's a bad thing is child porn, rape porn, and violence porn.
- JupiterMoon 9y ago
  Really none of these should be called porn+. They are various forms of abuse imagery and are both crimes and evidence of crimes. + (Assuming the rape and violence are real not just actors)
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    In a few years lots of the edgier stuff will just be very realistic computer-generated imagery, but I expect the puritans will be making the same argument? In fact, even if the government set up some sort of bureau of approved CP (maybe they would enforce that all legal CP could be built from source?) lots of people would still want it outlawed...
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      > In a few years lots of the edgier stuff will just be very realistic computer-generated imagery, but I expect the puritans will be making the same argument? In fact, even if the government set up some sort of bureau of approved CP (maybe they would enforce that all legal CP could be built from source?) lots of people would still want it outlawed... I lack a citation, but I believe even mock child porn is already illegal in the US.

k-mcgrady 9y ago

>> The dark web showcases the worst parts of the internet Are there any useful websites on the 'dark web'? I'm thinking of the kind of things we hundreds of millions use every day that are legal (social networks, email, youtube, etc.). If so why aren't more people using them? And if not that seems like the easiest way to change the image of the 'dark web' and bring more regular people on to it.

r3bl 9y ago
Facebook? DuckDuckGo?
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  My idea was more of a site like Facebook but ONLY available over TOR. Something people want/need to use and TOR is the only access method.
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > My idea was more of a site like Facebook but ONLY available over TOR. Something people want/need to use and TOR is the only access method. Silk Road ;-)
13of40 9y ago
I haven't tried TOR for some time, but when I did, it was about an order of magnitude slower and less reliable than a regular internet connection. It's not something like SSL that you can just turn on and get decent privacy for relatively little cost. If you wanted to order a pizza or shop for car parts, it wouldn't make sense to do it over a slow connection for anonymity you don't need.
- hellbanner 9y ago
  You're right, for the individual. TOR's site actually recommends using TOR no matter who you are, in order to provide cover for people you might care about who are in danger of being attacked from using TOR eg. activists

nitwit005 9y ago

These media spin terms get tiring. Saying you need a special way to log into a website is too boring, so they call it "The Dark Web". People saying lewd things in chatrooms is uninteresting, so it becomes "Virtual Rape". I just end up having to explain to my older relatives that it's nonsense when they ask me about it.

krapp 9y ago
I don't believe the mainstream media invented the term "dark web." Blame computer scientists and tech culture for that.
- jackewiehose 9y ago
  I blame the governments. They admittedly don't like people talking privatly.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    You know Tor is a US Navy project that still gets a large portion of its funding from the US Government, right? If you're going to talk about something a broad as the system of government, there needs to be some nuance and specificity in your statements.
    - jackewiehose 9y ago
      No, I didn't know that. Thanks to the US Navy. I just expressed my personal perception. I see politicians talking about, that the government should be able to decipher whatsapp etc. They probably don't like tor either.
      - openasocket 9y ago
        I wouldn't worry about it too much. I've yet to see any US politician make a serious case for making non-backdoored encryption illegal, or banning Tor. A couple people have mentioned the idea, but no one's proposed legislation or anything like that.

finnthehuman 9y ago

The dark web doesn't give online anonymity a bad name. Charlatans use the dark web to advance their goal of branding anonymity as bad. Clickbait hot take bloggers, "journalists" who should know better, and other useful idiots are all more than willing to assassinate character and tear down something they don't care about if it confers a benefit to themselves (attention, status, ad impressions, etc...). Those are the bigger problem. Not the "dark web." It's nice that this author is making the principled case for anonymity. But that should be secondary to showing people the bigger picture, and how to "smell out" when they're being mislead for someone's myopic goals.

slededit 9y ago
I don't see how pointing this out helps advance the goal of web anonymity. Unless you are suggesting we somehow find a way to change human nature.
- alphapapa 9y ago
  It helps us see through the deceptive arguments against anonymity. You don't think that's helpful?
  - slededit 9y ago
    Not really, no. While logically inconsistent the form of rhetoric used appeals to humans which are behaviorally dominated by group association. Pointing out its logical inconsistency appeals to a very small subset of the population who probably already agree with you.
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      What a cynical, defeatist attitude. The Internet is full of people, and you don't know who reads what. Everyone has to learn somewhere, to start from something. Your logic essentially is, "No one can learn anything; their opinions are fixed," but that's obviously false, as we have all learned or else we would be unable to read and write and do everything else we do. In fact, your posting your own comment contradicts your logic, as according to it, there's no point to saying what you said, since it can't change anyone's mind.

jszymborski 9y ago

A good start is calling it something other than the "dark web"...

jancsika 9y ago

Here's a solution to the "bad name" problem. Let's call it the Debian "Words of Encouragement" messaging app. Its purpose is to allow Debian members to send short, pithy words of encouragement to each other to spread goodwill through the universe. Here's how to build it: 1. Fork Bitmessage. 2. Have the client fetch the Debian strong set at startup. Only those keyholders may send and receive messages. 3. Limit it to one fixed-size message per day, to be sent at a pre-determined time. 4. If no message is in the queue, either send an acknowledgment of receipt for the last message or a randomly generated message. 5. Repeat forever. Now you've got a private information retrieval system that has no scaling problems, no Sybil attacks, and essentially no bad actors. (Or if a bad actor happen to materialize, well, they just signed their bad act with a key that someone in the Debian ecosystem should be able to tie to a human identity if it came to that.) And you don't have to worry about giving it an approachable UX because Debian devs don't care about that shit. Boom-- state-of-the-art decentralized messaging service that whose anonymity and metadata-mining resistance scales with Debian's own interest in granting its developerbase anonymity.

corndoge 9y ago
a key that someone should in the Debian ecosystem should be able to tie to a human identity anonymous Not sure I follow