Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum • Hacker News Board

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#191

Post by Steko » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 2:50 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #184

FireBeyond wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things aren't special "because ... Internet!". If something is done in public, it's done in public. If you'd face consequences for it on the street, why shouldn't you online? I can't see any particular level of logic than "we should be able to get away with shit online". Note, for emphasis, that this is entirely an aside to the subject of legalization, as I'm actually much more pro-legalization than anything else.

The Federalist Papers were published pseudonymously in 1787. I don't think people are asking for special privileges for the Internet.

We're the Federalist Papers advocating/admitting to illegal activity?

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#192

Post by hurin » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 3:12 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #44

nickysielicki wrote: post #3

We (speaking as a netizen) need Usenet 2.0; eg: something that can fulfill the role of reddit that is decentralized/distributed. Perhaps reddit can even transition into being a reader (a la google reader) for people that don't want to set up their own node. I'm not saying that drug discussion is the quintessential act that deserves to be protected, but I am worried that the government has such an easy avenue to get t…

Well, Usenet 1.0 was decentralised, and people need to think about the disadvantages. In the early 2000s well over 50% of the traffic was spam cancels. An forum without an "owner" who can delete posts and effectively ban spammers and "abuse" will promptly be filled with spam and abuse. The issue of "abuse" which is harmful to people other than users of the forum should also be considered carefully.

>> Perhaps reddit can even transition into being a reader (a la google reader) for people that don't want to set up their own node.

>The issue of "abuse" which is harmful to people other than users of the forum should also be considered carefully.

If you think of always accessing the information through a "reader" rather than in raw form, than effectively the reader mods can delete and remove spam - users could subscribe to a reader, or several readers that can give different views of the same information - but also would have the choice not to do so.

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#193

Post by deftnerd » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 3:31 AM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #178

nickysielicki wrote: post #3

We (speaking as a netizen) need Usenet 2.0; eg: something that can fulfill the role of reddit that is decentralized/distributed. Perhaps reddit can even transition into being a reader (a la google reader) for people that don't want to set up their own node. I'm not saying that drug discussion is the quintessential act that deserves to be protected, but I am worried that the government has such an easy avenue to get t…

I'm not sure that usenet 2.0 is even possible, just merely due to scale, although it would be nice if it did. I was very active on usenet back in the early to mid 1990s and I would say that it was an enormously valuable experience. I interacted with a lot of smart people, I got to explore a lot of exciting areas of interest, and I spent a lot of time improving my writing abilities. It makes me sad to think that there…

USENET 2.0 could be set up so only headers are transferred. Then third party groups could publish moderation whitelists that the USENET provider to subscribe to. If a moderated whitelist approves some content, then the server would download it via DHT so its locally available. If a user requests something in a header that hasn't been filled yet because it's not moderated by an approved whitelist, it would download it and then serve it to the user.

This would make it so content that's purely spam wouldn't be pulled to all the USENET servers. If a moderation provider started vouching for a lot of spam, it would quickly be removed by providers.

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#194

Post by TheDong » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 4:42 AM UTC

natrius wrote: post #116

nickysielicki wrote: post #3

We (speaking as a netizen) need Usenet 2.0; eg: something that can fulfill the role of reddit that is decentralized/distributed. Perhaps reddit can even transition into being a reader (a la google reader) for people that don't want to set up their own node. I'm not saying that drug discussion is the quintessential act that deserves to be protected, but I am worried that the government has such an easy avenue to get t…

If you're interested in decentralized applications, you need to be paying attention to Ethereum, Whisper, Swarm, and IPFS. The building blocks for what you're describing are being built. It will happen.

Let me throw tent.io into the mix: https://tent.io/

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#195

Post by siddboots » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 4:46 AM UTC

Off topic, but is there a name for the fad of having side-pane elements perpetually zoom and fade in and out as I read a blog post? Is there a reason for it?

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#196

Post by vacri » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 5:53 AM UTC

hurin wrote: post #192

pjc50 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Usenet 1.0 was decentralised, and people need to think about the disadvantages. In the early 2000s well over 50% of the traffic was spam cancels. An forum without an "owner" who can delete posts and effectively ban spammers and "abuse" will promptly be filled with spam and abuse. The issue of "abuse" which is harmful to people other than users of the forum should also be considered carefully.

>> Perhaps reddit can even transition into being a reader (a la google reader) for people that don't want to set up their own node. >The issue of "abuse" which is harmful to people other than users of the forum should also be considered carefully. If you think of always accessing the information through a "reader" rather than in raw form, than effectively the reader mods can delete and remove spam - users could subsc…

In which case you would get people with different views of what's going on - some people could see some articles but not others. Confusion would then be a problem - it's one we already have on forums that allow editing or deletion of commentary.

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#197

Post by DanBC » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 6:03 AM UTC

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #162

DanBC wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember weev from any Usenet groups I used. I do remember hipcrime sporges.

he was in the gnaa

Yes, I know. I don't remember them from any Usenet groups I used.

Hipcrime destroyed many groups until people worked out how to filter the sporges; snuh made a lot of noise across a wide range of groups but didn't have much effect; Meow army disrupted many groups; and obviously alt.syntax.tactical

The fact that snuh were more disruptive than gnaa is telling because snuh just wasn't very disruptive.

Do you have some search terms?

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#198

Post by vacri » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 6:05 AM UTC

karmacondon wrote: post #135

john_b wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They'll deflect, ignore, and basically try anything to escape the reality - they broke the rules of society and now society wants to punish them." I think most people, criminals or otherwise, understand this quite well. In fact, I'd guess that criminals understand it better than non-criminals. What some people don't seem to understand (or even want to think about) is that the law is often a pitiful and nationally…

People who break the law are criminals, period. It doesn't matter if the law is just or unjust, or whether or not you personally agree with it. The simple fact is that the majority of citizens don't want online drug dealing to be legal, so it isn't legal. Equating drug dealers with Ghandi, MLK and the US Founding Fathers is a stretch at the least and outright offensive at worst. These people aren't making bold politi…

The simple fact is that the majority of citizens don't want online drug dealing to be legal, so it isn't legal.

Last I saw, several US states were legalising marijuana sales. It seems that attitudes are shifting.

Your statement is also simplistic: a majority of citizens don't care one way or the other about catching undersized lobsters, yet it's illegal. Trademark infringement is another such law. Then there are laws that the public kind've want but the people in power don't, so they don't get made (eg protection for whistleblowers). The simplest counterexample is tax law. Taxes are incredibly unpopular, yet laws requiring taxes exist.

The genesis of laws is a lot more complex than magically popping in and out of existence with popular demand.

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#199

Post by Leynos » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 6:07 AM UTC

atmosx wrote: post #106

dogecoinbase wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(By the way, I would bet these people were using Tor and this subpoena is useless.) Based on how poor the opsec of previous darknet admins has been, I see no reason to assume theirs was any better.

You can't register via Tor on HN. I wonder if you can do that on reddit. Then there's always the email account thing, but if you were careful from day one, you could get away with it. Hosting AMAs is both stupid and provocative IMHO when you're a drug dealer.

Reddit doesn't require an email address to create an account.

Re: Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

#200

Post by pyre » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 7:23 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #183

pyre wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug opponents aren't just some religious nuts though. You're making a comment in the context of the article. All of the parent comments to mine made much broader statements in response to the root comment that was a more general statement. "If you break the law, then you have no right to complain when you go to jail." This is what I was responding to. It touches more than just drug law.

"If you break the law, then you have no right to complain when you go to jail." This is what I was responding to. You can say whatever you like when you are jailed. But I have limited sympathy, which I reserve for true victims of circumstance. You (usually) knew it was illegal when you did it. It's fine to disagree with the law, to protest it, to seek change. But "doing it anyway and hoping you don't get caught" is n…

Do you have the same lack of sympathy for homosexuals living in repressive societies? If they are not willing to be stoned to death for protesting the (often religion-based) law are they just a bunch of hypocrites?

Even in less repressive societies it was not that uncommon for drawing attention to your homosexual nature to make you a lightning rod for hate crimes. And the reaction of the rest of society wasn't "I'm appalled that such a thing would happen." It was, "What did he expect announcing that he was gay?" In the face of such attitudes, you blame the person being oppressed for not wanting to fling themselves under the bus?