5 ms·

It sounds like pull instead of push though, so the user presumably is only seeding things they have looked at, so a flag/delete/block button for them to remove

It sounds like pull instead of push though, so the user presumably is only seeding things they have looked at, so a flag/delete/block button for them to remove and block something from their node might be good enough.

hosh 12y ago
There's a block exchange protocol where that can be built in: refuse exchanges relating to block X. There is also potential for a web-of-trust built on top of that as well. So rather than a centralized flagging system, if sufficient numbers of people you marked as trusted flag something, it's likely not something you want to make block exchanges with.
patcheudor 12y ago
I'd say this one falls into the "sort of" category. In web security we are constantly fighting cross site request forgery (CSRF) bugs. Basically a bad actor places a GET or POST request into a page you visit which makes a request to another asset you are likely to have visited while authenticated like Facebook. This GET or POST then leads to some action on your behalf without your knowledge leading to an action of consequence such as making a wall post on your behalf. Similarly, within the context of this solution a bad actor could embed links to objects they want you to cache without your knowledge by not rendering the objects in a visible manner in the DOM. Yes, this can happen today and yes, the technique could be used to frame someone. In fact there was presumably once a court case where the defense team claimed their defendant didn't browse child porn and to provide the judge an example that it's possible to have child porn on a machine without ever knowingly visiting such content they had the judge browse the defense team website where they loaded up a bunch of images which went into his browser cache but which he didn't see because they weren't visible in the DOM. They then asked the forensics investigator to see if the judge had browsed the particular content and of course he came back that the judge did. In the case of this solution, a bad actor could use unsuspecting visitors to a site or users of a rogue WiFi network to load up the particular bad content they want distributed.

hosh 12y ago

There's a block exchange protocol where that can be built in: refuse exchanges relating to block X. There is also potential for a web-of-trust built on top of that as well. So rather than a centralized flagging system, if sufficient numbers of people you marked as trusted flag something, it's likely not something you want to make block exchanges with.

patcheudor 12y ago

I'd say this one falls into the "sort of" category. In web security we are constantly fighting cross site request forgery (CSRF) bugs. Basically a bad actor places a GET or POST request into a page you visit which makes a request to another asset you are likely to have visited while authenticated like Facebook. This GET or POST then leads to some action on your behalf without your knowledge leading to an action of consequence such as making a wall post on your behalf. Similarly, within the context of this solution a bad actor could embed links to objects they want you to cache without your knowledge by not rendering the objects in a visible manner in the DOM. Yes, this can happen today and yes, the technique could be used to frame someone. In fact there was presumably once a court case where the defense team claimed their defendant didn't browse child porn and to provide the judge an example that it's possible to have child porn on a machine without ever knowingly visiting such content they had the judge browse the defense team website where they loaded up a bunch of images which went into his browser cache but which he didn't see because they weren't visible in the DOM. They then asked the forensics investigator to see if the judge had browsed the particular content and of course he came back that the judge did. In the case of this solution, a bad actor could use unsuspecting visitors to a site or users of a rogue WiFi network to load up the particular bad content they want distributed.