2 ms·

I'm not endorsing this project but I take exception with your response. This type of project belongs on Hacker News and if we are going to take the time to resp

by sintaxi 12y ago

I'm not endorsing this project but I take exception with your response. This type of project belongs on Hacker News and if we are going to take the time to respond it might as well provide more feedback than telling someone they are wasting their limited time on earth. Buyer/seller privacy would be a fantastic development but blackmailing people is definitely in scumbag territory. I would like to see this project change its name, messaging, and even reevaluate its motives. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the core principle which is a free market with privacy. Which shouldn't be interpreted as "go break the law!". We need more people developing systems that emphasize privacy. Lets encourage those who are doing so by explaining what aspects we like/dislike.

azinman2 12y ago
So basically you're arguing it has merit by containing cryptography, but let's not forget that it was designed specifically for illicit use to VIOLATE people's privacy. And did you even read their bit about how this is geared towards PSYCHOPATHS?! That's their own word choice! I feel like it's hard to reason with anyone who is gearing their product towards the psychopath market! However for arguments sake, let's strip away the reality of what they're encouraging and find merits in non-illicit contexts. What can be productively sold in this way? Source code licensing, music and movies come to mind, but do they offer over iTunes or Shopify? I can only find cons. Let's look at the core principals that they're advertising and see how they apply: "Sellers encrypt, upload and then list their data on the digital market with the ease a user might list an item on eBay. They do so with full anonymity and there are no restrictions on the content of the data." So they let you upload to them, but most legitimate entities don't have storage costs as something that prevents them from entering the market. In fact they might be concerned about losing the control, not just in terms of proprietary nature but also being able to fine control the streaming quality, bandwidth, availability guarantees, etc. Legitimate sales interests also rarely need to be anonymous. Having their own marketplace (iTunes store, etc) also let's them restrict the privacy in the way that best favors them. The exceptions -- journalists or people under repressive regimes -- could benefit from such a marketplace if it weren't for the fact that they can't prevent the enemy from buying the information (they're anonymous, too), let alone sell it to many news outfits or many rebels over time (data can only be sold once). "Exclusive bidders attempt to purchase the data for their own use and / or prevent other parties from acquiring a copy. Should an exclusive bidder win the auction they alone will receive the decryption keys. The same data cannot be auctioned a second time on the Slur marketplace." Media companies and others that sell goods want to sell it in large numbers. This goal runs counter to exclusive bidders. Movies & music are out unless each copy has DRM watermarking which changes the binary enough, but that kind of stuff should probably be integrated into the market somehow (no small feat and runs counter to many "free software purist" ideals). "Crowd bidders pool their funds into a single bid. Should they win the auction the network will release the decryption keys to all users on the Slur marketplace and the information will therefore become public." I'm not even sure I fully understand this -- is this then a kickstarter for information? I thought the marketplace was about keeping things private? What ends up in public? If anything they should better explain what stays private and what ever goes into the public better. "Arbitrators are randomly selected users who agree to weigh in on a dispute should the winner of an auction claim that the decrypted contents do not match the sellers description." Or you could just phone visa and say hey can you remove this fraudulent charge please? Again good for journalists but what about everyday? "Public key cryptography ensures the data being sold can only be decrypted by the winner of the auction." As does SSL and DRM watermarking. ----- Look, there might be some legitimate amazing use that I'm ignorant towards, but it has to fight a lot of restrictions with this premise. It seems really geared towards illicit use in both design and message. I also can't get behind advocating for psychopaths. YES THOSE WITHOUT CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY LETS PICK THEM.

by sintaxi 12y ago

azinman2 12y ago

So basically you're arguing it has merit by containing cryptography, but let's not forget that it was designed specifically for illicit use to VIOLATE people's privacy. And did you even read their bit about how this is geared towards PSYCHOPATHS?! That's their own word choice! I feel like it's hard to reason with anyone who is gearing their product towards the psychopath market! However for arguments sake, let's strip away the reality of what they're encouraging and find merits in non-illicit contexts. What can be productively sold in this way? Source code licensing, music and movies come to mind, but do they offer over iTunes or Shopify? I can only find cons. Let's look at the core principals that they're advertising and see how they apply: "Sellers encrypt, upload and then list their data on the digital market with the ease a user might list an item on eBay. They do so with full anonymity and there are no restrictions on the content of the data." So they let you upload to them, but most legitimate entities don't have storage costs as something that prevents them from entering the market. In fact they might be concerned about losing the control, not just in terms of proprietary nature but also being able to fine control the streaming quality, bandwidth, availability guarantees, etc. Legitimate sales interests also rarely need to be anonymous. Having their own marketplace (iTunes store, etc) also let's them restrict the privacy in the way that best favors them. The exceptions -- journalists or people under repressive regimes -- could benefit from such a marketplace if it weren't for the fact that they can't prevent the enemy from buying the information (they're anonymous, too), let alone sell it to many news outfits or many rebels over time (data can only be sold once). "Exclusive bidders attempt to purchase the data for their own use and / or prevent other parties from acquiring a copy. Should an exclusive bidder win the auction they alone will receive the decryption keys. The same data cannot be auctioned a second time on the Slur marketplace." Media companies and others that sell goods want to sell it in large numbers. This goal runs counter to exclusive bidders. Movies & music are out unless each copy has DRM watermarking which changes the binary enough, but that kind of stuff should probably be integrated into the market somehow (no small feat and runs counter to many "free software purist" ideals). "Crowd bidders pool their funds into a single bid. Should they win the auction the network will release the decryption keys to all users on the Slur marketplace and the information will therefore become public." I'm not even sure I fully understand this -- is this then a kickstarter for information? I thought the marketplace was about keeping things private? What ends up in public? If anything they should better explain what stays private and what ever goes into the public better. "Arbitrators are randomly selected users who agree to weigh in on a dispute should the winner of an auction claim that the decrypted contents do not match the sellers description." Or you could just phone visa and say hey can you remove this fraudulent charge please? Again good for journalists but what about everyday? "Public key cryptography ensures the data being sold can only be decrypted by the winner of the auction." As does SSL and DRM watermarking. ----- Look, there might be some legitimate amazing use that I'm ignorant towards, but it has to fight a lot of restrictions with this premise. It seems really geared towards illicit use in both design and message. I also can't get behind advocating for psychopaths. YES THOSE WITHOUT CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY LETS PICK THEM.