4 ms·

I think he should change the name before it gets any kind of mainstream adoption...or maybe way before that. It's bad enough that such properties imply usage by

I think he should change the name before it gets any kind of mainstream adoption...or maybe way before that. It's bad enough that such properties imply usage by the "evil-doers". You shouldn't give it a name that sounds like it's something used by evil-doers, too, which might actually be the worst part. Politicians never bother to learn about something in-depth anyway. All it matters is if it sounds bad or good, then they'll vote for it or against it.

keane 15y ago
This is an important concept. If such a system did gain widespread adoption, the government would certainly take steps against it. In the 60s the Diggers/Yippie type group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAW/MF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAW/MF chose their name very aware that it would not be able to be written in print. They knew that they would not be controlling the message in the coverage of their group in the traditional media and so they attempted to embed a message in their name itself. Likewise, rather than call this scheme Phantom, it might be wiser to name it after a member of the old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence for embedded patriotism and appeal to authority type connotation. Perhaps "Jefferson". In this way, if the government were to target the protocol, they would have to take questions from the press as to why they were targeting JeffersonNet, etc.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  You have a good point about giving it a positive connotation like that, but a name like Jefferson would be cumbersome, too. Perhaps something like SafeNet. Just think about it, even when someone would hear something like that they'd be intrigued. "Oh? Safenet?Is it like a safer Internet? Interesting. Where do I find it?" Plus, you could almost see what the news headlines would be like: "Government tries to take down the Safenet". "Government wants to make Safenet illegal", "Why the Government doesn't want you to be Safe online", "What's so wrong about wanting to be safe online?" etc Pretty much anyway you'd spin it, it would make the Government the bad guy. Why do you think RIAA names bills like "Protect IP", which is about censoring the Internet, or Homeland security wanted to make the SHIELD law, which is about catching whistleblowers and such. They named them so anyone who "dares" to go against them would be looked at as the bad guy. "How could you want to stop something like SHIELD as its name??" Naming is not everything, but it can definitely have a big impact on perception of the general population, which is all that matters in the end.
wcoenen 15y ago
The fact that pages 5-7 in the white paper use a number of illegal activities to illustrate the need for anonymity doesn't help either. http://www.magnusbrading.com/phantom/phantom-design-paper.pdf http://www.magnusbrading.com/phantom/phantom-design-paper.pd... Confusingly on page 10 it is claimed that such abuses are not possible because the network is isolated. But I don't really see the difference between configuring your Tor node as an exit node, or running a proxy reachable over Phantom.

keane 15y ago

This is an important concept. If such a system did gain widespread adoption, the government would certainly take steps against it. In the 60s the Diggers/Yippie type group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAW/MF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAW/MF chose their name very aware that it would not be able to be written in print. They knew that they would not be controlling the message in the coverage of their group in the traditional media and so they attempted to embed a message in their name itself. Likewise, rather than call this scheme Phantom, it might be wiser to name it after a member of the old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_correspondence for embedded patriotism and appeal to authority type connotation. Perhaps "Jefferson". In this way, if the government were to target the protocol, they would have to take questions from the press as to why they were targeting JeffersonNet, etc.

nextparadigms 15y ago
You have a good point about giving it a positive connotation like that, but a name like Jefferson would be cumbersome, too. Perhaps something like SafeNet. Just think about it, even when someone would hear something like that they'd be intrigued. "Oh? Safenet?Is it like a safer Internet? Interesting. Where do I find it?" Plus, you could almost see what the news headlines would be like: "Government tries to take down the Safenet". "Government wants to make Safenet illegal", "Why the Government doesn't want you to be Safe online", "What's so wrong about wanting to be safe online?" etc Pretty much anyway you'd spin it, it would make the Government the bad guy. Why do you think RIAA names bills like "Protect IP", which is about censoring the Internet, or Homeland security wanted to make the SHIELD law, which is about catching whistleblowers and such. They named them so anyone who "dares" to go against them would be looked at as the bad guy. "How could you want to stop something like SHIELD as its name??" Naming is not everything, but it can definitely have a big impact on perception of the general population, which is all that matters in the end.

wcoenen 15y ago

The fact that pages 5-7 in the white paper use a number of illegal activities to illustrate the need for anonymity doesn't help either. http://www.magnusbrading.com/phantom/phantom-design-paper.pdf http://www.magnusbrading.com/phantom/phantom-design-paper.pd... Confusingly on page 10 it is claimed that such abuses are not possible because the network is isolated. But I don't really see the difference between configuring your Tor node as an exit node, or running a proxy reachable over Phantom.