3 ms·

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/Yippi

by 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.

by keane 15y ago

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.