Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Build a Browser-Based Darknet
ancientribe writes "At Black Hat USA next month, researchers will demonstrate a way to use modern browsers to more easily build darknets — underground private Internet communities where users can share content and ideas securely and anonymously. HP's Billy Hoffman and Matt Wood have created Veiled, a proof-of-concept darknet that only requires participants have an HTML 5-based browser to join. No special software or configuration is necessary, unlike with darknets such as Tor. Veiled is basically a 'zero footprint' network, in which groups can rapidly form and disappear without a trace. The researchers admit darknets are attractive to bad guys, too, but they say they think these more easily set-up and dismantled nets will be more popular for mainstream (and legit) users." In somewhat related news, reader cheesethegreat informs us that version 0.7.5 of FreeNet has hit the tubes.
Now get it out to the protesters in Iran and spread it in China for that matter.
Of course secrecy is attractive to bad guys. Problem is according to current legislation we are all bad guys, always crossing some obscure irrelevant law we don't know about.
So one man's secrecy is another man's privacy and protection from overreaching criminalization.
Oh, and anything you write or view on the internet, say over the phone, purchase, sms about, dial on your phone, etc. is saved and archived forever, by default, unless you make a special effort to enforce your right of privacy. Even that special effort does not guarantee protection and furthermore, that effort is not difficult to notice, and boom, you are someone with something to hide, i.e. one of the bad guys.
War is peace. Doublegood peace.
Yes, darknet is attractive to bad guys but so is expectation of privacy in general.
Talking in secret in advance helps them to take to the streets at the same time and in the same place.
And that's exactly the reason why this will be outlawed immediately as soon as a sizable portion of the population (in the western world, folks, I'm not talking about Iran, China and Burma here) uses it to circumvent the governmental snooping that's running rampart.
Can't outlaw it, you say? Because we're in a free world and thus they can't just simply outlaw encryption?
Ok, they won't. What we'll get is a law that makes you liable if you "faciliate the spread of pedophilia". After all, if you help a pedo you're in the wrong as well, ain't you? Since you can't really determine what kind of data you roll around in a darknet (it would kinda defeat the purpose if you could), darknet proponents would get their IP sniffed and law enforcement would download any kind of kiddy porn they could find in the darknet. As soon as the IP of a proponent can be linked to the porn (say, a chunk came from him because it was stored at his part of the cloud), the trap closes, the law enforcement can "prove" that darknet proponents are "only" in for the kiddy porn and thus darknet is an evil tool of child exploitation.
Gimme a single reason to believe this won't happen, I beg you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think you are probably right and this type of thing will be attempted. However, in that situation, I would think that one could argue they had no knowledge that that's what they were partaking in. After all, that's the design of the system, right? Hell, if I help out a guy with a flat tire who happens to proceed to rape a child, am I guilty of aiding a pedophile? No, because there are plenty of legit reasons why a guy would be driving around in a car. Just as there are plenty of legit reasons why someone would want to surf entirely anonymously.
That would make sense. But do you think a judge will be able to tell the difference, more so when he is told that he should better NOT tell the difference? It will be made a tool that faciliates child porn, and no "honest citizen" needs it... do you think this argumentation wouldn't be used? And all too readily believed by those that don't really care too much as long as they got YouTube and Twitter?
The idea that something should be legal because it is usually used for legal means and only in exceptions for illegal ones is one of the past. The same analogy could be used for guns, cars, almost anything human made can be used for good and ill. The problem here is that darknets are by their very definition something governments cannot regulate or control, and thus they will bring all the firepower they have into the field to destroy them if they see wide public use. The only reason we haven't seen them cracking down hard on them is simply that the amount of people using (or even knowing about) them is minimal. If darknets become a tool usable (and used) by the average computer user, they will become a target of governments which are all too eager to control and monitor what their citizens do.
I.e. pretty much all governments on this planet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Here's your counter argument: In repressive governments like the Chinese, those darknets serve a very sensible purpose because they allow them the right to free speech and discussion of politics. Here, there is no reason for those as you may already speak your mind, and thus the only reason to use them in the "free world" is to do something illegal.
Bet nobody realizes that they're used for exactly the same thing in "repressive" states: To do something illegal. Like, say, enjoy freedom of speech.
Isn't it strange that we're all for handing people the ability to circumvent their laws if we consider those laws "wrong", but we dread the same at home?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.