5 ms·

> point is there will be illicit content being shared You could have just said that, or 'pirated movies', but neither are as inflammatory are they? Instead yo

> point is there will be illicit content being shared You could have just said that, or 'pirated movies', but neither are as inflammatory are they? Instead you chose to make the most offensive assumption you could think up.

tempsy 6y ago
if you really think the earliest adopters of this project are going to be sharing pirated copies of The Avengers over child porn you don't understand anything about the internet and incentives
- viraptor 6y ago
  Have a look at what ipfs actually does. The nodes involved not only don't try to hide/obscure any metadata, they will share it with anyone running a DHT node and your queries will be pretty much public. Ipfs is probably the worst solution for distributing illegal content. The incentives there are actually to use just about anything else.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Why does your understanding of the internet dictates that most early adopters of tech are mentally ill paedophiles? Paedophilia is not like theft, it's only attractive to a small subset of people.
PeterisP 6y ago
It's not about being inflammatory, but about illustrating a key risk - child porn is pretty much unique compared to other illicit content in that possession alone immediately makes you into a felon; it's not a civil issue like pirated movies but a crime, and malicious intent or even knowing about the content is not necessary to make you guilty, unlike pretty much everything else. On the other hand, attempts to distribute child abuse imagery are sufficiently common so as to consider it a real risk, not some unlikely hypothetical issue that's not going to materialize. So for any service that's going to put random files on an end user device it's very relevant to ask the particular question "how are you going to ensure that child porn does not get put there?", with the explicit focus on child porn - it's acceptable if the service has no solution for pirated movies, because if pirated movies get put on someone's PC without their knowledge, that's not going to them in jail, but for child porn at least some answer is mandatory. For example, at the very minimum, censorship of known bad file hashes, such databases exist - of course, that's circumventable by e.g. encryption, but it would help from the legal perspective.

tempsy 6y ago

if you really think the earliest adopters of this project are going to be sharing pirated copies of The Avengers over child porn you don't understand anything about the internet and incentives

viraptor 6y ago
Have a look at what ipfs actually does. The nodes involved not only don't try to hide/obscure any metadata, they will share it with anyone running a DHT node and your queries will be pretty much public. Ipfs is probably the worst solution for distributing illegal content. The incentives there are actually to use just about anything else.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Why does your understanding of the internet dictates that most early adopters of tech are mentally ill paedophiles? Paedophilia is not like theft, it's only attractive to a small subset of people.

PeterisP 6y ago

It's not about being inflammatory, but about illustrating a key risk - child porn is pretty much unique compared to other illicit content in that possession alone immediately makes you into a felon; it's not a civil issue like pirated movies but a crime, and malicious intent or even knowing about the content is not necessary to make you guilty, unlike pretty much everything else. On the other hand, attempts to distribute child abuse imagery are sufficiently common so as to consider it a real risk, not some unlikely hypothetical issue that's not going to materialize. So for any service that's going to put random files on an end user device it's very relevant to ask the particular question "how are you going to ensure that child porn does not get put there?", with the explicit focus on child porn - it's acceptable if the service has no solution for pirated movies, because if pirated movies get put on someone's PC without their knowledge, that's not going to them in jail, but for child porn at least some answer is mandatory. For example, at the very minimum, censorship of known bad file hashes, such databases exist - of course, that's circumventable by e.g. encryption, but it would help from the legal perspective.