Re: Why BlackNet *IS* a Data Haven

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

At 2:03 PM 8/19/96, Hal wrote:
>mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy) writes:
>>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:
>
>I think part of the confusion here is the name "BlackNet".  As I envision
>the concept, BlackNet is not really an anonymous contact service, or in
>fact a network of any sort.  Rather, it is a vendor.  It buys and sells
>information.  The name, while provocative, is a bit misleading in this
>regard.  (This is just my model, and may not actually correspond with
>Tim's or anyone else's idea.  But I think it more closely matches the
>data haven concept, and in fact is more consistent with the original
>announcement.)

Hal is right that BlackNet was presented as a _specific vendor_. But the
announcement also described how _anybody_ could set themselves up in the
same way, by sending out a similar announcement with their own public key.

My purpose was to:

-- demonstrate the coming future

-- use a concrete example, "BlackNet," to drive home the point (people
often pooh-pooh an abstract idea until a concrete, reified version is
produced)

-- stimulate debate about anonymous information markets

I'll comment on a few of Hal's points, but, to save space, will not comment
on most of them.


>BlackNet has a public key, and a known virtual location in the form of
>certain newsgroups that it monitors.  Anyone can initiate a
>communication interchange with BlackNet by posting a message to those
>groups, encrypted with BlackNet's key.  Presumably in that message will
>be included return address information in the form of a key and a set of
>locations that will be monitored for replies.  In this way ongoing
>conversations can be maintained between BlackNet and customers who are
>either buying or selling to it.

Exactly. And this is how it was used for several two-way communications,
back in Sept-Nov '93.

An article on the cover of "Information Week" last summer triggered new
interest, and a couple of new messages addressed to "BlackNet"--the ones I
tried to read apparently used a spoofed key, or the one Dettweiler created
and placed ahead of mine on the MIT keyserver (the shorter key that the MIT
group was able to eventually break).

>BlackNet would not be used (as I see it) for direct communication
>between buyers and sellers of information.  How would the BlackNet
>public key fit into this model?  The existence of a specific BlackNet
>public key is part of what drives me to picture it as a vendor.
>Rather, BlackNet will buy information (plus unrestricted rights to
>disseminate that information), add it to its catalog, and then
>advertise its availability and price.

It could be used for direct communications, via pools, a la the classified
ad analogy that Jim McCoy just used (and that, in fairness, I used to
describe it in a talk at Hackers several years ago).

There is "BlackNet the company" and "BlackNet the abstraction." Inasmuch as
the recipe is easy to duplicate, "BlackNet the company" would face heavy
competition.

....[stuff elided]...

>This is a little different from my picture of BlackNet, as I wrote above.
>I would see BlackNet as being a particular seller of information, who
>will respond to this message.  It could have competitors like SafeHaven,
>StrongHold, InfoBase, etc., each of which will offer data for a price,
>and each of which will have its own reputation for reliability.

Exactly.

Hal quoting Jim:

>>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
...

>Here is where BlackNet as an information middleman makes the most sense.
>Its business model includes the costs of this sort of vigilance, which
>after all can be automated.

All sorts of automated vigilance can be done: scripts that scan newsgroups
and message pools, even Alta Vista-type spider searches, agents, etc.
Depending on the type of message pool, whether Usenet newsgroup, mailing
list, Web site, etc., various kinds of automation are possible. Which will
prove popular of course depends on a lot of factors.

...[more elided]...

>Actually we now have "virtual malls" online.  These are in their infancy
>but eventually they could become as easy to use and reliable as regular
>malls (for appropriate kinds of goods).  All that BlackNet (as I picture
>it) lacks is a WWW interface, and even that could be provided if the
>gateway server could be made immune to legal pressure and if various
>technicalities about anonymous WWW connections could be dealt with.

Agreed.

>As for reputations, if BlackNet is one of several vendors of
>information, like its competitors, they can all develop reputations of
>their own for reliability, honesty, availability, etc.  There may be
>problems if the testimonials of customers are all anonymous, but in
>some cases such methods as signed transcripts of information exchanges
>can be used by one side or the other to justify claims that the other
>side has cheated.

Again, agreed. Evolutionary learning will take place, reputations will be
strengthened and weakened, as always. Certainly some fraud will occur, as
in all markets.

The point being that this information market will be anarchic, in that no
government or official hierarchy will rule on legality of data. Various
access mechanisms will be tried.

The Usenet and mailing list pools are somewhat slow, but have already
worked for things like "I'd like a copy of the Church of Scientology secret
documents." (In fact, in addition to "alt.religion.scientology," for
discussions and requests, there is the newsgroup
"alt.binaries.scientology," for posting anonymized copies of restricted
documents.)

That the latency is not as low as some other markets seems to be more a
function of nascency (is this a word? it should be) than intrinsic
limitations.

---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."