From Cybersecession

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. It helps avoid 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?

Good point. But this is exactly where our mind/Cyberspace analogy shows its 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 contemplate mounting a bomb in some office at Apple. Could this ever validate the gov scanning our brains? Never.

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 ethically valid. This makes it a "cybersecessionist project".

On the other hand, using Darknet is unethical (i.e. not a "cybersecessionist project") under any regime that:

(1) doesn't forbid valid anonymity (= anonymity they can isolate themselves from)
(2) doesn't try to compromise valid anonymity in any way

and preferably also:

(3) invalidates any legal evidence obtained by compromising valid anonymity

Note, though, that there's no such government as of yet.

Most governments will have to follow the conditions mentioned above (there is simply NO other way to deal with us), and then the Darknet will become unethical (actually unnecessary); it will probably be used on top of other, valid, anonymizers.

Personal tools