Re:Why BlackNet *IS* a Data Haven

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 8:28 AM 8/19/96, Jim McCoy wrote:
>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.

There are various amounts of persistence, depending on which kind of "pool"
is used:


* Usenet newsgroups have a persistence of days to weeks, depending on one's
particular site. This is enough for parties to find each other _if_ they
are watching (or having agents watching). And of course Usenet archives are
expected--Alta Vista and Deja News has Usenet articles going back several
months in many cases.

* Mailing list message pools (a la Cuperman) have an effectively infinite
persistence, if parties archive the messages.

* Web-based message pools, which to my knowledge have not been used yet,
would have a persistence as long as the messages are archived...which could
be very long.

Rather than _persistence_, I'd say _access time_ or _latency_ is a more
serious criticism of my approach. In contrast to a large library or
bookstore, with access times of ~minutes, the access times for material on
BlackNet may be ~days to ~weeks. Or, of course, "never."

>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.

I grant that my version is not like a "Mega-Barnes-and-Noble" bookstore,
with vast amounts of stuff available for browsing. It is more like a
"stacks"-based library. (Many universities have lesser-used books,
sometimes _all_ books, in "stacks," accessible only by qualified
librarians, or by permission.)

>> 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.

Some have focussed on "place," by focussing on ideas like offshore buoys,
orbiting broadcasters, and, of course, on finding accomodating
jurisdictions that will tolerate data havens in their midst.

You and I may agree that data havens need to be virtual. I'm just proposing
an architecture--and certainly not the final version!--that actually works.
Others can suggest their own alternatives, or build on versions that are
out there.

>> 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 :)

What if only one person has a copy? Nothing in *my* concept of data haven
says anything about information being free, or cheap, or widely available.
Books aren't usually free, of course, so why should information be free

The issue of what happens if someone buys an item and then republishes or
redistributes it is, of course, orthogonal to the discussion here. It's a
tough problem, and the basis of the "information wants to be free"
aphorism. But not a key issue for differentiating forms of data havens, as
I see things.

>> 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.

I agree with the "classified ads vs. shopping mall" distinction. In fact,
it neatly summarizes the latency/availability issues. So be it.

Until the "shopping mall" exists, I'll settle for the "classified ads." If
BlackNet and similar systems function adequately as an anonymous classified
ad system, this will be an improvement over what exists now, which is, of
course, "nothing."

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."