The Dark Side of the Web

Barence writes "Beneath the web pages indexed by Google lies an online world that few know exists. It's a realm of huge, untapped reserves of valuable information containing sprawling databases, hidden websites and murky forums. It's a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind's biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone. The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society. The deep web is also the new frontier for those who want to rival Google in the field of search." The melodrama is tempered, though: "The deep web isn’t half as strange or sinister as it sounds. In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."

Comments

interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?

[OrangeCatholic]

TFA:

>terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone.

No, actually, speak for yourself!

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?

[celibate for life]

Good job! Now the FBI will know they don't need to monitor you, as you obviously abhor child porn and terrorism!

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?

[antifoidulus]

No, but I am interested in the "porn bomb", ie a device that releases a massive amount of porn when set off. Can you imagine how much less bullshit people in the hardcore religious societies would have to put up with if you set off one of these in their place of worship?

Holy shit, a vagina that I didn't have marry anyone in order to see, this is awesome!

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?

[PietjeJantje]

Why is this comment modded Insightful when the quote has been manipulated to give it another meaning?

It’s a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind’s biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.

At the same time, the underground web is the best hope for those who want to escape the bonds of totalitarian state censorship, and share their ideas or experiences with the outside world.

Interested? You’re not alone.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?

[OrangeCatholic]

It's not my fault the quote was manipulated. I was quoting the poorly-worded Slashdot article.

And it should have been modded "funny."

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But does he abhor them enough to support trampling all over the rights of everyone else? That's the true test of a patriot.

Been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the Metaverse, created by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash. We now know it as Second Life.

Terrorism

[Taco Cowboy]

I find it ironic that in the online world there are places where the Terrorists and those who support them are calling us, the Freedom Loving People, terrorists !

By the original Terrorists I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go KABOOM ! taking themselves with innocent people around them.

What I find ironic is THEY call us terrorists !!

Re:Terrorism

[BluenoseJake]

I find it amazing that you don't understand why. The US and it's allies have been fucking around in Middle eastern affairs for decades. I mean really, what in god's name made the UN believe that it was ok to throw a few million Jews in the middle of several different groups of people that hate them? Then the US helps arm them to the teeth, and supports israeli incursions into Palestine. The US also supported Iraq during the 10 year long war with Iran, and then at the end, Iraq needs help to rebuild, and what does the US do? Go fuck yourself Iraq. They did the same thing in Afghanistan, supplied the rebels with arms and training against the USSR, then dropped them like a hot potato after the war. The US then unilaterally invades Iraq in 2003, lied about the reasons, and proceeded to try to force their beliefs on the Iraqis, with no problem using torture to achieve their goals. I'd hate "the Freedom Loving People" too, if I was them. You're like the ultimate douchebags, take what you want, do what you want in the name of "National Security" and then leave your targets hanging, just like the douche that drops roofies in a girls drink.

Re:Terrorism

[couchslug]

Christianity says Jews are the Chosen People so we must support them at ALL costs and be horny for the Apocalypse.

That superstition just happens to conflict with Islam, an even more (and that's quite an accomplishment!) toxic supersition.

The only problem with such a religious war is that innocent atheists may be harmed in the process.

Re:Terrorism

[BluenoseJake]

I'm not advocating killing any Jews, I'm wondering the wisdom of putting several million of them in a place where everybody hates them, then arming them to the teeth, further antagonizing their neighbours. It would have been far more intelligent to give them say a piece of Canada (I live in Canada, so unlike the UN, I am not offering something I don't own). Oh, and right back at you.

Re:Terrorism

[BluenoseJake]

The Israelis lost that country 3000 years ago, that would be like giving the US back to the Natives. Are you willing to give up your home for the same principles? Thought not.

Re:Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really, what in god's name made the UN believe that it was ok to throw a few million Jews in the middle of several different groups of people that hate them?

Up until the 20th century, the Palestinians did not hate Jews. Zionist immigrants (trying to get backing from the British colonial power), however, managed to change that in the early 20th century. And most people really don't like having *their* country signed over to someone else. I find it surprising how anyone could miss that it would lead to a permanent state of war.

Re:Terrorism

[cusco]

Wow. So much disinformation in a single post.

Re:Terrorism

[jonadab]

> It would have been far more intelligent to give them say a piece of Canada

But that isn't where they wanted to go.

Well, okay, sure, some of them probably would have taken you up on it, especially right after the holocaust. Goodness knows some of them have moved just about everywhere else in the world.

But that wouldn't have stopped Jews from moving to the middle east. They'd already been wanting to get back into "the land" for a while (roughly, since the first century), and increasing numbers of them had been moving there since the late nineteenth century. The war fallout sure did give the numbers a boost, but the Zionist movement was not new at the end of the war. It had already been underway for a full generation.

The real goof-up, arguably, was scattering them to the four winds in the first place. You can thank the good people of Rome (particularly Vespasian and Titus) for that move. Although, in fairness to them, it was not entirely unprovoked.

Re:Terrorism

[Philip_the_physicist]

"I mean really, what in god's name made the UN believe that it was ok to throw a few million Jews in the middle of several different groups of people that hate them?"

The U.N. had nothing to do with it. Jews had lived there for three thousand years; it's where Jews come from. Jews lived throughout the Middle East for two thousand years, with a significant minority population in all of the Arab states until the pogroms following Israel's independence. The "few million" Jews moving to Israel were refugees fleeing persecution in Europe who bought the land they moved onto and had every right to move there. The Arabs at the time were not opposed to Zionism (the progressive idea of social equality between the Jews and everyone else) except for a few rogue right-wingers who started riots, gained control of the mosques through violence, and were continually appeased and promoted by the British occupation until they became the predominant force. The 1948 war came at the end of a thirty year pro-war propaganda campaign that included the executions of dozens of Arab leaders who supported peace with the Jews. The U.N. only signed off on the deal after Israel survived what the Arab League had promised would be the greatest massacre since the Mongol invasions.

Even if the creation of Israel was a morally good thing to do, it wasn't very good from a practical point of view. Supporting Zionism put the western powers at odds with the Arab states which control a significant part of the world's oil supplies and exacerbated the instability in the region. It would surely have been more cost-effective to have maintained a large Anglo-American base in Palestine (which could have been done legitimately, since Palestine was held by the British under a League of Nations Mandate since WWI).

One should remember that the justification for government is that the government will look after the interests of its citizens, and that, with the benefit of hindsight, creating Israel was probably not in the best interests of the citizens of the countries which agreed to it.

Anyway, the Canaanites were there there before the Israelites :) (More seriously, if you are following a literal-historical view of the description of the Israelites going down into Egypt, remember that Ishmael was Abraham's heir under Mesopotamian law, and that his family remained in the Holy Land. Then consider whom folklore considers to be his descendants. The Torah doesn't help if you want to consider who was there first, and if God/YHWH wants the Israelis to have the region, he can help them get it himself.)

I am not anti-Semitic in any sense of the word, nor do I care about anyone else's private religious practices. Nor do I have any connection with anti-Israeli organisations, or give a pair of foetid dingoes kidneys what someone's race is (especially given that many Israelites are ethnically European, not Semitic anyway)

Re:Terrorism

[Taco Cowboy]

Up until the 20th century, the Palestinians did not hate Jews.

Look buddy ! /. isn't the place for you to spread your lie.

Crawl back under that rock of yours and spread your lies there !

I have had enough of you terrorist vermins !

Re:Terrorism

[lsatenstein]

Regarding Israel. Look at the Old TESTIMENT for the old testiment of the Christian bible (King James version comes to mind). Jews have been in Jerusalem since the time of King David, well before Christianity was a religion. The Palistinians never had a country, nor a city, nor a government. They were the rejects from all the Arab countries and moved to Jordan. Were there Arabs living in what is now Israel? Yes, Were they numerous? No, When the 48 war came, did they flee? Yes, Did Israel want their return? No, for fear of disloyalty to a new country. Did the Arabs want their own people back? No, fxxk their own people. When the USA won Texas from Mexico, should Mexico get the territory back? Yes, because it belongs to Mexico. If it does not, then the spoils of the 6 days war (1967) belong to Israel. Israel still gave land back, but they will never give Jerusalem ever. King David more then 3000 years ago found this Jewish city. As for peace. The Palestinian people are held hostage by their own governments. They are just pawns in the power struggle.

Re:Terrorism

[BluenoseJake]

Uh, wtf are you going on about?

http://www.robotstxt.org/

[GuyFawkes]

http://www.robotstxt.org/

Says it all really, no need for a melodramatic "article" trying to draw parallels between the non indexed and page ranked portion of the net, and kiddie porn.

Some of us just don't want google indexing out stuff on general principles.

FX, types "brain tumour" into google

up pops page full of links asking me if I want to buy a brain tumour on fleabay...

Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/

[KamuZ]

But not all robots honor the file you see...

Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/

[Idbar]

Perhaps they don't index that data (although not necessarily true for some engines). That doesn't mean it's not crawled (and kept for another reasons).

Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/

[jesset77]

Perhaps they don't index that data (although not necessarily true for some engines). That doesn't mean it's not crawled (and kept for another reasons).

That is exactly what it means. They can't crawl the data without exhaustively visiting the website. If a webmaster sees a bot hitting their restrictive robots.txt, and then continuing to hepelumph through the rest of the site grabbing crap, the webmaster can let his attorney decide which of a thousand roads to take next.

Google may be big, but they pay heed to the possibility of negative PR from spidering where they are not welcome.

It's hidden on a purpose

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video - there's next to zero informational value in this undernet. As someone once said "Information wants to be free" and if it isn't let it die.

The real problem which this article doesn't even touch is that sometimes it's getting very hard to find the information buried in millions of pages Google returns to your query.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[History's Coming To]

Loads of stuff is hidden on purpose...config files, site member info, etc etc. I "accidentally hacked" a law company's MySQL DB once because their phpmyadmin wasn't hidden properly and showed up on a Google search for an obscure error message I searched for. Hidden-From-Google != Nasty-Child-Pornographers......

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[BiggerIsBetter]

You must be new here. "Darknets" have been around since the start of the internet, and there's nothing necessarily illicit about it. Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc. And if you're looking at websites rather than places or resources, you haven't even scratched the surface.

Basically, people like to communicate online, but that doesn't give you (or Google) the right to index it or even access it just 'cos it's on the internet - whether you like it or not, it's their communications not yours. Don't see value in it? Don't spend your time there. Think it's illegal? Call the cops with details. Just like IRL.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[PopeRatzo]

there's next to zero informational value in this undernet

Maybe you just didn't look in the right places.

It's possible.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Will.Woodhull]

From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video

My first reaction was to respond "bullshit!", but on further reflection I realized that parent post is legitimate within the context of an extremely narrow point of view. It isn't so much an example of bullshit as an example of limited thinking of someone who knows very little about a subject, but thinks he knows it all.

As a writer of fiction, I use the darknet extensively: I've got hidden wikis and websites where I collect information I don't yet want to share publicly, and where I compose rough drafts that I want to share with only a selected few. I am sure that I am not alone in this approach. I can't imagine any new authors of the 21st century who are not doing the same kind of thing.

Most of the darknet is benign. Most of it is the aggregate of the huge number of private conversations that go on within the global crowd. There is nothing sinsiter about this, nor does it contradict the "information wants to be free" imperative. Since for the most part these conversations have to do with things that might eventually become information, but are in their nascent period, where they are confused, incomplete pieces that a private group is trying to make sense of.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Patch86]

While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights, I disagree with things being "off limits" just because it's implied.

If you put data on the internet which isn't access protected or encrypted, then like it or not it is accessible to the public. Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a "please don't read me" sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus; sure it's a common courtesy to obey the label, but you can't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone doesn't.

If you want data to be on the internet but private, protect it properly. If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it's defence then don't come complaining when it gets looked at.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Iyonesco]

"Think it's illegal? Call the cops with details."

You: "Officer, I was interested in these so called 'dark nets' so looking around I happened to find a website with child porn on it. Clicking about the site I found there were literally hundreds of images so I thought I best report it to the police."

Police: "Please stay by your computer and we'll be around to arrest you shortly. Enjoy your 25 years in prison."

I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on. If you see somebody being raped keep walking. If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them. The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Omestes]

Police: "Please stay by your computer and we'll be around to arrest you shortly. Enjoy your 25 years in prison."

That has never happened to me. I've called the police three times over finding child porn online. The first time was in the mid-90's when I found some on a local (popular) BBS, and the police were concerned but utterly clueless on what to do. This was before they had an actual "cybercrimes" division. I don't think anything ever happened with that one. The second time I called on another complaint, they referred it up to the FBI, I don't know if anything ever happened because I never went back to the site again for obvious reasons. The third time, the local police took all my information, said thank you, and I never heard about it again. I'm guessing they handled it so nonchalantly the third time because they finally got their act together, and knew what to do.

Never once did the FBI knock on my door, or the police harp at me or treat me like a criminal.

If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on. If you see somebody being raped keep walking. If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them. The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.

Are you a sociopath? If I saw any of the above I would try to help, especially in cases of direct harm, like rape and children in trouble. It is my civic, and human duty to step in. I couldn't sleep at night if I just walked away and tried to forget it. But then again I'm the type who stop and try to help injured animals, and swerve to avoid hitting squirrels.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[catman]

If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them. The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.

I've seen people act as if they really believed that. A small boy crying desperately, any parent would realize that he was distressed. Plenty of adults within hearing, nobody seemed to care. I talked to him, found out he was lost in his new neighborhood and helped him find his way. And yes, I did think about the possibility that I would be taken for a child molester, but - suppose he didn't find his way and was picked up by someone not out to help him?

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

[troll]

Until the law grants me preemptive indemnity if I pull out a pistol and double tap the perp, no questions asked I'd probably walk. I have no civic duty to my neighbors--over half are on welfare, don't work, and are living off of my taxes. I'm not exaggerating--I'm in the middle of an apartment complex, and of the 8 apartments around me, there's one employed middle-aged woman.

Hell, I nearly got in trouble once for giving directions to a kid that was clearly lost in the supermarket and telling him "we're going to get you to a store clerk, they're who you should go to when you're lost--somebody in a uniform"--fucking overzealous mother thought I was going to sodomize her crotchfruit because I talked to some teary eyed rugrat and pointed him to the clerk not 50 feet away. Until people go and punch out the bitch that gives me the evil eye and snatches her kid away after she comes running from three aisles away--I'm not taking the fucking chance. My freedom is worth more than their kid's life.

Human duty? They aren't humans. Call the police, let them deal with it. Their kids? They're being raised by animals too. See case above.

Don't get me wrong, there's two neighbors--I'd go out of the way for. But most of them...would be left to the same harm they'd leave me. Hell, one of the damned idiots had their retarded kid stomp a duckling to death last year. CYS/CPS/Police/SPCA did jack shit. If I see somebody throw that budding serial killer in a trunk it won't be soon enough.

So yes, to hell with "social responsibility"--YOUR society created this crap, I just live in it. The person above isn't a sociopath--they're a gainful member of the society you live in. You want to help--do violence to the paranoids that threaten people who assist. Maybe in 15 to 20 years I'll consider rejoining.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[jc42]

As a writer of fiction, I use the darknet extensively: I've got hidden wikis and websites where I collect information I don't yet want to share publicly, and where I compose rough drafts that I want to share with only a selected few. I am sure that I am not alone in this approach. I can't imagine any new authors of the 21st century who are not doing the same kind of thing.

This approach goes back way before the Web. The mailing list systems that developed back in the late 1970s and 1980s had "moderated" and limited-distribution lists for similar purposes.

In some cases, privatizing a discussion can be a requirement of having the discussion. Thus, early on the biologists found that it was a good idea to limit the ability to post to their lists, because if they didn't do this, they would be flooded with zillions of pages of text from the religious folks who would respond to any message that matched patterns like "evol[uv]". Similarly, professional historians limited access to discussions of topics such as the Middle East, because they were being buried by messages from bots that automatically posted huge quantities of text in response to a number of strings like "Israel".

Of course, many of these lists were fairly open to readers; they usually only restricted posting to cut down on the "spam" from ideological believers. But now that the Net is a commercial success, there are many reasons to carry out discussions totally in secret. That way, you are protected from the commercial folks who will file patents on your ideas, or publish your words or code or music as their own and then sue you for infringement.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, to hell with "social responsibility"--YOUR society created this crap, I just live in it. The person above isn't a sociopath--they're a gainful member of the society you live in. You want to help--do violence to the paranoids that threaten people who assist. Maybe in 15 to 20 years I'll consider rejoining.

Right on the money! You should write a newsletter. I'm wondering how many of us there are.

Although I no longer live in an environment like the one you describe, I empathize with you completely, because I've been there.

Every time I read about a jerkoff wanting to pass "mandatory good Samaritan" laws I want to rip their head off. You will NOT mandate my assistance; it is a judgement call for me to make, and to be quite blunt I wouldn't piss on most of you to put you out if you were aflame. Once you prove to me that you're worth my while I'll help (as with your two neighbors).

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Mike610544]

I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

This is among the dumbest things I've ever seen on the internet. Guilty or innocent, you're going to get more scrutiny from the cops if you don't cooperate. Once you're indicted everything the guy says is probably true, but when there's a bar fight and someone gets killed, do you really want to be the one person in the crowd who says, by omission "I will not deny that I killed that guy?"

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[Philip_the_physicist]

I have always interpreted this asa meaning that information wants to be free just like apples want to fall: information has a tendency to get out, and you ahve to actually try to stop it.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose

[infinitelink]

I think that you, sir, have just implicitly misrepresented what the video presents. One would not say "I will not deny that I killed that guy". The advice was (summarizing) "don't talk to the police" because "anything you say can be used against you, while anything you don't cannot be used against you". In this view, saying "I will not deny that I killed that guy" could be used against one--one said something--while saying nothing at all could not be. I think that the place to say something, if one should be found to be accused, would be in testimony in court, with the counsel of the lawyer, not to the police. In that video, regarding this advise being good, a lawyer, a Supreme Court Justice (his writing quoted), and a cop, are all in agreement.

But before you think I misread you, I didn't: I just presented the above just in case, because you wrote that one would say "I will not deny that I killed that guy", even if "by omission" (that is, by not saying anything). So with that considered, I'll say it again, that if I understand these matters correctly, what one does not say cannot be used against one, while what one does say can and will be used against you (even true statements that if they were accepted by themselves would prove innocence). There may be presumption theoretically in law, but perhaps there is no guarantee of this before either a jury of peers nor among the police whose job is to arrest and make cases to prosecute, according to the video. In relation to this, some whom I know that are on-track to go to law school have said that in any instance where an officer or authority/official ever claims that not saying anything can be used against you, implies guilt, etc., it means (if presented in court and accepted, or recorded, or officers admit, or witnesses confirm, etc. etc.) that you are off, period: even if they had you on tape, but you did not admit or say anything, and they said that not doing so would mean your guilt would be assumed. That wouldn't mean, however, that one should (if we're to take the message of that video seriously) say anything, boast, brag, whatever, whether innocent or guilty; rather one should (I think in keeping with the video's advice) still say nothing period, even with or without a lawyer's presence; I believe the reasoning behind this immediate "one is free, period, and cannot be found guilty, if an officer were to imply/say this", is because of a ruling of court: officers can deceive you, of course, but they can't say or imply presumption of guilt if one does not waive one's fifth amendment rights: the courts have taken such trickery very seriously and frowned on it gravely, whereas claims that waiving them will help, however, aren't taken to be so bad.

Disclaimer: the above is personal opinion, and is not binding, does not constitute legal advise or counsel, and in no way should be construed to be authoritative or suitable for any purpose, use, or capacity except exhibiting the qualities and functioning as expression of protected ideas and speech under Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any factual, logical, argumentative, theoretical, or other errors, mis-statement/s, or controversial matter is unintended, demonstrates the author's imperfection and the unsuitability of taking the text for anything more than reading another's opinion, and show that the author is no authority nor to be taken as such in these matters as of this writing. The foregoing is meant only as discourse in the genre of critical commentary for continuing public discussion of ideas and is therefore presented with the intent that replies of any nature, positive, negative, or ambivalent, are welcome.

I learned a lot from this article

[macbuzz01]

The author explains that there is a lot of content behind password protected sites. I had no idea that google didn't know your password!

I heard something about a robots.txt file somewhere before, but I thought that all robots where smarter than me anyway.

I also learned about something called freeweb that may or may not be used for good or bad things. I then learned about TOR which also may or may not be used for good or bad things.

This article really opened my eyes to the vastness of the Internets

Time Travel?

[scross]

The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...

Re:Time Travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the poster traveled back in time or the date and month are transposed. I'm betting on time travel.

The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...

Re:Time Travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

The american date format must die.

Re:Time Travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

The american date format must die.

Quoted for truth.

Re:Time Travel?

[Zumbs]

Where I live, we would say 22nd May 1964 (it is not an English speaking country, so we did away with the commonly used "of"). Why is this format nice? Because it is consistent. Day is before month and month is before year.

Re:Time Travel?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Personally I think written dates should take the form year month day, ex. 2010 March 13th. Like decimal numbers.

Re:Time Travel?

[dotancohen]

If someone asks you when you were born, you don't say:
"1964, 22nd, May", you say, "May 22nd, 1964" - which is the American format. Enough.

I would say the 22nd of May, 1964.

When someone asks you for the time, do you tell him in HH:SS:MM format? The units must be ordered either from least to most significant (dd-mm-yyyy) or most to least significant (yyyy-mm-dd). I don't care which you chose. But don't put the least significant unit in _the_middle_!!!

See this horrible Open Office bug on the subject:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5556

Re:Time Travel?

[Smauler]

You have missed something. There's plenty of available information on time travel in the dark side of the web, or at least there will be in 6 months time.

Re:Time Travel?

[uvajed_ekil]

> The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...

You need to spend more time looking into the info available on the darknets then, clearly. You have missed something. The truth is out there.

Re:Time Travel?

[catman]

It is always September.

Re:Time Travel?

[u38cg]

That is a very sensible way of doing it which no-one will take any notice of. Thanks, The Universe.

Re:Time Travel?

[cffrost]

The [A]merican date format must die.

Agreed.

Re:Time Travel?

[Philip_the_physicist]

They say 3rd of October, and don't think its awkward. It's just a question of what you are used to hearing, like so many of the differences between en-US and en-GB.

Re:Time Travel?

[sjames]

An advantage to most significant first, numeric, with leading zeros is that the dates will sort correctly.

Re:Time Travel?

[unitron]

But don't put the least significant unit in _the_middle_!!!

Except that the date of the anniversary of my birth or of my next dental appointment are difficult to think of as the least significant. : - )

this article is a bad idea.

[SinShiva]

there is no mystery to this 'deep web'. massive data reserves? quite likely. personal, but unsecured servers hosting copyrighted content? even more likely.

This kind of article will only make things worse for a future defendant trying to explain he wasn't coordinating with 'the deep' in the distribution of his movies from his computer to his Mythbuntu box.

Adopt a long term perspective...

[arcite]

Just maybe not everyone in the world wants to be Google's bitch and allow them to mine their precious information for profit. Information may want to be free, but information is also power. Secrets are valuable to those who hold them, and in a near future world where information becomes increasingly more valuable, those who hold the secrets will be the most powerful.

Now just ask yourself, are you willing to submit to the likes of Google and give up the right and freedom to decide what to do with your information? Your secrets?

Do we continue to sell our individuality, our identity so cheaply?

Re:Adopt a long term perspective...

[Yfrwlf]

Really? I thought openness and sharing information is what made the various open movements so great and powerful/valuable, like the open source software movement. Single individual collaboration between multiple individuals.

Re:Adopt a long term perspective...

[Yfrwlf]

Whoops, supposed to be arrows there, didn't notice the Extrans selection, nice feature. :D

Why include Deep Web?

[BarryNorton]

Darknets are a concern. What is the link with the Deep Web? The only connection seems to be that they're both unindexed by search engines.

I thought the article might get to the point by the last page, but it was still talking about child protection and terrorism (in company databases???) I had wondered whether this confusion was down to an incautious academic, but the doesn't seem to suggest it: http://ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/

About Privacy

[javilon]

The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society

Corporations, wealthy individuals and people in power keep their right to privacy. That's not good for the "safety of society". See the ACTA negotiation. Most of the calls about the future of society are made in a non transparent way, by corporations, the psychopaths that run them and corrupt politicians. If I don't keep my right to privacy ( and this looks like a lost cause) then I want them to lose it as well. I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board. I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database. I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.

Re:About Privacy

[Datamonstar]

What you ask for is worthless without any way to reliably verify it. The real answer is true privacy for all.

Re:About Privacy

[javilon]

I agree with that, but the message people in power is throwing around is that privacy is a lost cause... for us.

If they realized that in that case we are not willing to allow them to keep their own privacy and anonymity, they may change their minds.

In fact, it may be a good idea to keep individuals privacy, but making institutions and corporations transparent.

Re:About Privacy

[Zumbs]

I actually could not help pondering that exact quote, particularly what it is missing. Those who wish to sacrifice the right to online privacy in order to make profits, such as the entertainment industry or advertisers; or to find and oppress dissidents for whatever reason.

Re:About Privacy

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board. I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database. I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.

Before you ask for more intrusion of gov't into corporate affairs, step back and realize most corporations are small businesses owned by regular people.

That's computer-science speak?

[Anonymous Coward]

> In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."

Spare me your mumbo jumbo, doctor!

In other news...

[srussia]

Vast collections of literature (many, many LoCs worth) exist outside amazon.com containing esoteric theories, morbid historical narratives and subversive ideas.

What is the problem?

[Brian Ribbon]

If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?

The vast majority of people who use onion routing are very cautious people, so very few will be stupid enough to leave a trail which could identify them (such as a payment) as doing anything which is seriously controversial or illegal. It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks.

If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.

The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents. Instead, politicians and police chiefs tend to focus on matters which score politicial points and win votes; parents are not an acceptable target because they constitute a major component of the electorate. Claming to fight child pornography is much easier for politicians and police chiefs, as they will not lose significant support and they can easily claim a victory without any risk of being exposed as liars; after all, who is going to check the evidence?

Re:What is the problem?

[blahplusplus]

This is a brilliant post, wish I had the mod points.

Re:What is the problem?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?

The problem is that it offends people who love reading about these stories. Those who are not offended enough to really care will still go along with those who do for fear of being targeted. We live in a democracy, ergo the will of the vocal minority will make it illegal. Moreover, this same will leads to draconian restrictions and state surveillance of the internet and indeed the general population.

The "problem" here is less the child pornographers than it is the people who go into irrational emotional meltdowns whenever someone mentions the password("pedophiles") and who then proceed in their hysteria to tear down the great society that has been built over the last 200 years. Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance. These crusaders on the other hand are a direct and immediate threat to our way of life--or at least what our way of life used to be.

Re:What is the problem?

[kz45]

"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?"

Because children are abused during the making of child pornography. You really don't understand this?

"It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks."

I bet it still happens. Child porn is highly illegal and as a result, it probably has a high value on the black market. You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network (hell, some might even charge for access).

"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography."

If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught, it does contribute to the problem. These people may have gotten caught if they weren't able to pass it around undetected.

"The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents."

We already do. Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents. It's also not always the parent. Many times, it's a friend of the parents/family (or even siblings/cousins).

Re:What is the problem?

[Brian Ribbon]

"Children are sexually and emotionally abused. Would you say that it's okay to molest children as long as its just a "hobby?""

Neither I nor any of the respondents suggested that children being abused is "okay"; that would be a ridiculous assertion. My argument was that distribution and availability of child pornography on anonymous networks is extremely unlikely to encourage people to produce it.

I also question your assumption that "child pornography" is necessarily a depiction of children being molested. I don't know of any definition in any part of the word which dictates that an image must show children being molested in order for the image to be considered "child pornography". In the UK, for example, an image is illegal if, in the opinion of the jury, it "offends against the recognised standards of propriety"; the image does not need to meet any other criteria.

"Nobody profits from being a pedophile, but they still hurt children in ways you obviously could never sympathize with."

Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Most paedophiles don't hurt children for the same reasons that you wouldn't try (nor wish) to hurt adults who you're attracted to. Do you really think that most paedophiles fantasise about children suffering and don't know the difference between fantasy and reality? The alleged "threat" of "paedophiles" is as overblown as the threat of terrorism.

"Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance."

"This is insane. You seriously don't understand the effects on the victims?"

I think ObsessiveMathsFreak was accounting for context, which is a key issue here.

If you think that child pornography is a depiction of children being molested, do you not feel that those producing the images would molest the children anyway? In cases where children are actually molested and filmed, it is the molestation that is the problem, not the camera.

While everybody is panicking about child pornography, children are being abused by their parents and being killed by armies around the world, while the inherent rights of all people are being systematically stolen by governments in the name of protecting those children.

In the context of all that is done to children and also to adults, ObsessiveMathsFreak's statement is understandable.

Re:What is the problem?

[unitron]

Theory 2 overlooks the possiblility that the "profit" comes not in the form of money, but that if two child molesters exchange materials, each gets "exciting, new" child pornography in exchange for easy and cheap to make copies of stuff they already have on hand that may have, from their point of view, have lost some of its "inspirational power".

Re:ObPinkFloyd

[peragrin]

no quite a bit of it is lit by fiber optics.

Some years ago...

[bagsta]

... I came across to this nice article regarding deep web. It has some techniques on how to search, access and exploit deep web. It is worth to look also the other articles of this site...

Pretty much ruined it for me

[Travoltus]

I was thinking about exploring those 'darknets' but child porn? I don't even want my browser pre-caching its way into those websites much less directly stumble onto one. At least I was warned. Anyone foolish enough to go there can't expect to feel like a victim if they get caught in a dragnet for showing up on a bad site's web access log.

Re:Pretty much ruined it for me

[ResidntGeek]

Jesus Christ. You are the weakest person I've heard of in months. Grow a spine.

Re:Pretty much ruined it for me

[Thiez]

You could stumble on that stuff on the 'regular' intertubes too. Although in some places it is more likely than others (e.g. 4chan).

Re:here is an analogy of the danger to consider

[3seas]

missing link in above: The Trillion Dollar Bet

NOYBnets

[Anonymous Coward]

It is like going to garage sales. You can expect to see a ton of the same old garbage, but usually someone has 'stored' something they don't care about but you really want. Occassionally there are priceless buried treasures that should be shared with the whole world. If marketers could regularly go through them all, it would provide unparalled insight into what we buy and store. Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending on your point of view) everyone doesn't get to ramble through our garage unless we give them access or they break-in.

They are not really "darknets", a more accurate name is NOYBnets. (None Of Your Business)

BBS, IRC

[roman_mir]

If you still remember how to use those BBSs, the IRCs, then you can get back into the 'darknet' world I guess, though today it is also about appearing/disappering websites and botnets. Botnets like Zeus got that whole 'FreeNet' idea and have their own implementation, only it's not exactly free.

13% of the web explored by search engines?

[heidaro]

I was recently told by an academic in computer security that only about 13% of the web are indexed by search engines such as Google. Does anyone know anything about this?

Re:13% of the web explored by search engines?

[Rhaban]

and how exactly do they know the number of non-indexed pages? it's not as if google could do a "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sites WHERE indexed=FALSE" on their database, because the basic idea is that these sites are not in any extern databases.

Re:13% of the web explored by search engines?

[jandoedel]

easy, just do a SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE not in (SELECT * from indexed);

not really

[ILuvRamen]

I made my forum/website invisible to search engines because I only want members coming from one single place which I have a link on. Then only certain members join and it's actually quite nice and peaceful. That's really all there is to it. No terrorists or anything.

Bottom line

[nurb432]

So the bottom line is there is more private data then public data floating around.

Go figure. *snooze*

Slow news day?

[Don Faulkner]

It must be a slow news day for something so technical to show up as a news article. But then again, the article has all of the necessary alarmist features, so I guess they had to let it through.

Must be that time of year again

[MattGWU]

Every 12, 16 months or so I go "Oh yeah, Freenet exists...I should check it out again." But every time, I can't answer the question: Is there anything actually HERE?

Freenet: Is there actually anything worthwhile on it?

Re:I know a place

[jandoedel]

and what place would that be?

eh

[kadnan]

Darknets are not new for me. Every porn site I visited had a dark background thus helped me to "penetrate" into it further.

Darkweb

[LlamaZorz]

I thought Darknets were private and encrypted vpn based file sharing systems. They work based on invites and trust.

I think the author meant Darkweb

Undernet

[Nethead]

So this is the new term for IPv6?

Yes, believe it or not Google cannot do everything

[BC_Man]

Google has built quite an empire on making people believe that they are the defacto standard for search. They should be commended for the quality of their applications but sadly the marketing has led people astray. I actually took a trip to my local University to do some research. A day login gave me access to thousands of Scientific papers that I would otherwise have to pay hundreds of pounds for. Doing real research takes footwork and hardwork. The web can do a lot but you have to know where to look. See http://narconews.com/Issue64/article4073.html , http://deepwebresearch.blogspot.com/ , http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,13927,1195901,00.html

"Dark Side of the Web" moniker already taken...

[Godskitchen]

It's more commonly known as 4chan... or, "the bottom of the internet."

I know a place

[MaskedSlacker]

where all the junkies go.
Where everything is fast
And everyone gets slow.

options

[Spaham]

I see you never tried the -robot-follow option in google...

"swerve to avoid hitting squirrels"

[Quietlife2k]

Oh so you're the lunatic that acts first thinks later - the next time you swerve watch out for the kid on a bike you did not see the first time you looked.

Re:Yes, believe it or not Google cannot do everyth

[repapetilto]

Google is actually a good way to find scientific papers, their search engine gives better results than the academic databases offer most of the time... the problem is you usually have to pay. The best thing to do alot of the time is google what you want then log in through your schools VPN or go their library to get the paper without paying.

Fravia's Research

[not_hylas( )]

Fravia's Research:

http://www.searchlores.org/

http://www.searchlores.org/indexo.htm

He was a great guy - it's his "fan club" I couldn't stand.
Watch yourself on the links to some of the "discussion boards".

There's some really good knowledge in what he left us.

One print page...

[antdude]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/print

Re:ObPinkFloyd

[Moghedien]

... But beware the dark fiber! For it will gloom you!