Re:Why BlackNet *IS* a Data Haven
Tim May writes:
Without splitting too many semantic hairs about the precise definition of "data haven," let me examine some ways in which BlackNet behaves identically to a conventional data haven.
I would be willing to concede the point if you would take a few seconds to examine the issue of complete lack of persistence in BlackNet. Your descriptions of BlackNet as a data haven seem to be completely based upon the presumption that an anonymous contact service and contract exchange is the functional equivalent to a data haven. Here are a few reasons why I would disagree: As a publisher of "naughty bits" I do not have the ability to just toss data up and assume that it will be there when someone wants it. I am forced to continuously monitor the appropriate newsgroups to find messages from people asking me to post the blueprints to the orbital mind control lasers or kiddie porn. I cannot put my data onto "the Net" with an expectation that any arbitrary user will be able to get the bits one month later. To maintain persistence I need to constantly repost my data, making it easier for authorities to trace me through simple taffic analysis if nothing else.
The classical data haven is closely identified with "place." To many people, they naturally assume "data haven" = a haven for data, a "harbor" (same IE root as haven) = a physical place.
But is "place" important?
No one has really claimed place is important, in fact the ideal data haven has no physical existence whatsoever. This is a given. As a practical matter it is a lot easier if you start off in a "place" because there are fewer complications but this has never been a necessity.
A person in the U.S. seeking the Necronomicon posts a message to BlackNet (or any similar forum, using the same methods) asking for a copy of it, or offering to pay for it. (Whether the information is free or for a fee is not central to the idea.) This request is, of course, untraceable.
Anyone, anywhere in the world, with a copy of this banned material on his or her private machines may see this request and respond, either giving the material away, or negotiating a fee. (As I said before, the absence of a robust digital cash system, bidirectionally untraceable, is a known limitation of all such systems.)
Now you reveal the objection I had to BlackNet being a data haven. What if only one person has a copy of this banned material? It may not be in this publishers interest to have the data available to anyone for posting in response to the query ("Information does not want to be free, it wants to be expensive and liberated...") and some data is not widespread enough or of interest to enough people to assume that multiple copies exist to those who read BlackNet postings. Therefore the only way for a publisher to maintain availability of their data is to constantly monitor the appropriate newsgroups and republish for each request, persistence is maintained only through eternal vigilence (much like liberty, only requiring a lot more effort :)
It's a data haven.
No, it is an anonymous contact service. To claim this is a data haven is like claiming that the classified ads in a newspaper are the equivalent to a mall; you could probably find the same goods if you looked long enough, but there is a reason that manufacturers sell goods through stores rather than just posting classified ads across the country. When one does not have the time to check the classified ads, wants to goods from a reputable source, and wants the goods in a timely fashion they will go to a shopping center. jim
mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy) writes:
Your descriptions of BlackNet as a data haven seem to be completely based upon the presumption that an anonymous contact service and contract exchange is the functional equivalent to a data haven. Here are a few reasons why I would disagree:
I think part of the confusion here is the name "BlackNet". As I envision the concept, BlackNet is not really an anonymous contact service, or in fact a network of any sort. Rather, it is a vendor. It buys and sells information. The name, while provocative, is a bit misleading in this regard. (This is just my model, and may not actually correspond with Tim's or anyone else's idea. But I think it more closely matches the data haven concept, and in fact is more consistent with the original announcement.) BlackNet has a public key, and a known virtual location in the form of certain newsgroups that it monitors. Anyone can initiate a communication interchange with BlackNet by posting a message to those groups, encrypted with BlackNet's key. Presumably in that message will be included return address information in the form of a key and a set of locations that will be monitored for replies. In this way ongoing conversations can be maintained between BlackNet and customers who are either buying or selling to it. BlackNet would not be used (as I see it) for direct communication between buyers and sellers of information. How would the BlackNet public key fit into this model? The existence of a specific BlackNet public key is part of what drives me to picture it as a vendor. Rather, BlackNet will buy information (plus unrestricted rights to disseminate that information), add it to its catalog, and then advertise its availability and price.
As a publisher of "naughty bits" I do not have the ability to just toss data up and assume that it will be there when someone wants it. I am forced to continuously monitor the appropriate newsgroups to find messages from people asking me to post the blueprints to the orbital mind control lasers or kiddie porn. I cannot put my data onto "the Net" with an expectation that any arbitrary user will be able to get the bits one month later. To maintain persistence I need to constantly repost my data, making it easier for authorities to trace me through simple taffic analysis if nothing else.
This model pictures BlackNet differently than I do. As I see it, once you sell your data to BlackNet you don't have to take any more steps. There may still be problems, in that you may feel that BlackNet is setting too high a price on the data you want to distribute. However of course anyone is free to start up a competing service, if they want to take the risks. BlackNet fees will in the long run be determined by competitive market conditions based on the costs of maintaining anonymity.
[Quoting Tim May:]
A person in the U.S. seeking the Necronomicon posts a message to BlackNet (or any similar forum, using the same methods) asking for a copy of it, or offering to pay for it. (Whether the information is free or for a fee is not central to the idea.) This request is, of course, untraceable.
Anyone, anywhere in the world, with a copy of this banned material on his or her private machines may see this request and respond, either giving the material away, or negotiating a fee. (As I said before, the absence of a robust digital cash system, bidirectionally untraceable, is a known limitation of all such systems.)
This is a little different from my picture of BlackNet, as I wrote above. I would see BlackNet as being a particular seller of information, who will respond to this message. It could have competitors like SafeHaven, StrongHold, InfoBase, etc., each of which will offer data for a price, and each of which will have its own reputation for reliability.
Now you reveal the objection I had to BlackNet being a data haven. What if only one person has a copy of this banned material? It may not be in this publishers interest to have the data available to anyone for posting in response to the query ("Information does not want to be free, it wants to be expensive and liberated...") and some data is not widespread enough or of interest to enough people to assume that multiple copies exist to those who read BlackNet postings. Therefore the only way for a publisher to maintain availability of their data is to constantly monitor the appropriate newsgroups and republish for each request, persistence is maintained only through eternal vigilence (much like liberty, only requiring a lot more effort :)
Here is where BlackNet as an information middleman makes the most sense. Its business model includes the costs of this sort of vigilance, which after all can be automated.
It's a data haven.
No, it is an anonymous contact service. To claim this is a data haven is like claiming that the classified ads in a newspaper are the equivalent to a mall; you could probably find the same goods if you looked long enough, but there is a reason that manufacturers sell goods through stores rather than just posting classified ads across the country. When one does not have the time to check the classified ads, wants to goods from a reputable source, and wants the goods in a timely fashion they will go to a shopping center.
Actually we now have "virtual malls" online. These are in their infancy but eventually they could become as easy to use and reliable as regular malls (for appropriate kinds of goods). All that BlackNet (as I picture it) lacks is a WWW interface, and even that could be provided if the gateway server could be made immune to legal pressure and if various technicalities about anonymous WWW connections could be dealt with. As for reputations, if BlackNet is one of several vendors of information, like its competitors, they can all develop reputations of their own for reliability, honesty, availability, etc. There may be problems if the testimonials of customers are all anonymous, but in some cases such methods as signed transcripts of information exchanges can be used by one side or the other to justify claims that the other side has cheated. Hal
participants (2)
-
Hal -
mccoy＠communities.com