Comments
From Cybersecession
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Please read [[Cybersecession and EFF]]. If you will still think this idea is not new, then please let us know. We hate duplicate work. | Please read [[Cybersecession and EFF]]. If you will still think this idea is not new, then please let us know. We hate duplicate work. | ||
| + | |||
'''There is no such thing as a "cyberspace enclave" that can't affect the material world. Everything that happens there will actually affect the material world very much. Think of an online portal run by terrorists where they can get together and plan attacks etc. or simply keep in touch and share feelings. How can you find out who they are if you insure anonymity for everybody?''' | '''There is no such thing as a "cyberspace enclave" that can't affect the material world. Everything that happens there will actually affect the material world very much. Think of an online portal run by terrorists where they can get together and plan attacks etc. or simply keep in touch and share feelings. How can you find out who they are if you insure anonymity for everybody?''' | ||
Heh. Strong point. But this is exactly where our concept shows it's strength. All of us might have "terrorist" thoughts once in a while. Some people imagine raping other people or being raped, for instance. Some even desire to destroy the Microsoft Headquarters (probably because they were recently fired for unjust reasons?) Will this EVER validate the gov scanning our brains? NOPE. NEVER EVER. Strong comparison, huh? | Heh. Strong point. But this is exactly where our concept shows it's strength. All of us might have "terrorist" thoughts once in a while. Some people imagine raping other people or being raped, for instance. Some even desire to destroy the Microsoft Headquarters (probably because they were recently fired for unjust reasons?) Will this EVER validate the gov scanning our brains? NOPE. NEVER EVER. Strong comparison, huh? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''According to the list found on the [[Community Portal]], Freenet's Darknet is considered a cybersecessionist project. This is not ethically valid, since its users list is not published, which makes them impossible to isolate against.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Under an authoritarian regime that forbids any type of anonymity, it's obvious that Darknet is absolutely '''valid ethically'''. So this makes it a "cybersecessionist project". | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the other hand, under any regime that: | ||
| + | |||
| + | : (1) doesn't forbid valid anonymity (= anonymity they can isolate themselves from) | ||
| + | : (2) doesn't try to compromize valid anonymity in any way | ||
| + | : (3) forbids and punishes any attempts of anyone to compromize valid anonymity | ||
| + | : (4) legally invalidates any legal evidence that is a result of compromized valid anonymity | ||
| + | |||
| + | ... using Darknet is not validated ethically, so it is not a "cybersecessionist project". Now all you have to do is to name that government. :) | ||
| + | |||
| + | We're smiling but '''not kidding'''. '''Most''' governments will soon '''have to''' observe all the four conditions mentioned above (there is simply '''NO other way''' to deal with us), and then the Darknet will become unethical, but actually unnecessary; it will probably be used on top of other, valid, anonymizers. | ||
Revision as of 06:32, 29 July 2006
I fail to understand how this is a new idea. EFF have been following similar goals for years.
Please read Cybersecession and EFF. If you will still think this idea is not new, then please let us know. We hate duplicate work.
There is no such thing as a "cyberspace enclave" that can't affect the material world. Everything that happens there will actually affect the material world very much. Think of an online portal run by terrorists where they can get together and plan attacks etc. or simply keep in touch and share feelings. How can you find out who they are if you insure anonymity for everybody?
Heh. Strong point. But this is exactly where our concept shows it's strength. All of us might have "terrorist" thoughts once in a while. Some people imagine raping other people or being raped, for instance. Some even desire to destroy the Microsoft Headquarters (probably because they were recently fired for unjust reasons?) Will this EVER validate the gov scanning our brains? NOPE. NEVER EVER. Strong comparison, huh?
According to the list found on the Community Portal, Freenet's Darknet is considered a cybersecessionist project. This is not ethically valid, since its users list is not published, which makes them impossible to isolate against.
Under an authoritarian regime that forbids any type of anonymity, it's obvious that Darknet is absolutely valid ethically. So this makes it a "cybersecessionist project".
On the other hand, under any regime that:
- (1) doesn't forbid valid anonymity (= anonymity they can isolate themselves from)
- (2) doesn't try to compromize valid anonymity in any way
- (3) forbids and punishes any attempts of anyone to compromize valid anonymity
- (4) legally invalidates any legal evidence that is a result of compromized valid anonymity
... using Darknet is not validated ethically, so it is not a "cybersecessionist project". Now all you have to do is to name that government. :)
We're smiling but not kidding. Most governments will soon have to observe all the four conditions mentioned above (there is simply NO other way to deal with us), and then the Darknet will become unethical, but actually unnecessary; it will probably be used on top of other, valid, anonymizers.
