The Deep Web - thread

[Desaix DeBurgh]

To need so much anonymity I can only imagine the things you look for.

You are seriously mistaken and you need to be enlightened so read below to understand why you are so seriously wrong :

The Eternal Value of Privacy
Bruce Schneier

The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."[Edward Snowden has already shown the government does collect information on everybody no matter if you are doing anything wrong--KevinB] "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

http://archive.wired.com/politics/se.../2006/05/70886

[KawaiiKawaii]

To need so much anonymity I can only imagine the things you look for.

Privacy is a right that should be enjoyed as much as possible. This is not about what kind of things you are looking for, but about your supreme right not to be spied on.

[Also]

You are seriously mistaken and you need to be enlightened so read below to understand why you are so seriously wrong :


[text]

There is a misunderstanding, I don't think the we need a justification for privacy and I don't think it is intrinsically immoral to look for it. I am also against any governmental mass surveillance program.

But still, it is expected that those who look for illegal things, like child porn, drug markets and other things I perhaps can't even imagine right now will be more likely to take the most of those privacy measures because the loss of their privacy implies a greater risk. It says in the OP that the deep web has become a nesting ground for criminal activity.

The problem with mass surveillance programs is that they collect personal data and metadata about everyone for no particular reason. Just in case they may find it useful in the future they are storing data about regular citizens of their own country and of others. On the other hand those "anonymity tools" provide a framework for criminals and probably terrorists to work. The ideal is somewhere in between, that no government have unrestricted access to personal data of people, even if they are only storing it, but if there is sufficient reason, like a serious suspicion of involvement in something serious, they should have the means to obtain at least part of that data to fight criminal activities.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

There is a misunderstanding, I don't think the we need a justification for privacy and I don't think it is intrinsically immoral to look for it. I am also against any governmental mass surveillance program.

But still, it is expected that those who look for illegal things, like child porn, drug markets and other things I perhaps can't even imagine right now will be more likely to take the most of those privacy measures because the loss of their privacy implies a greater risk. It says in the OP that the deep web has become a nesting ground for criminal activity.

The problem with mass surveillance programs is that they collect personal data and metadata about everyone for no particular reason. Just in case they may find it useful in the future they are storing data about regular citizens of their own country and of others. On the other hand those "anonymity tools" provide a framework for criminals and probably terrorists to work. The ideal is somewhere in between, that no government have unrestricted access to personal data of people, even if they are only storing it, but if there is sufficient reason, like a serious suspicion of involvement in something serious, they should have the means to obtain at least part of that data to fight criminal activities.

Yeah, well I mostly use that much anonymity because of the revelations of Edward Snowden on government mass surveillance not because I am doing anything illegal per se. Also, I am a Libertarian so many things my government considers illegal I disagree with. For instance, I disagree that drugs should be illegal. Libertarians believe that people should be free to do anything they want with their body as long as they don't harm other people; so that logically includes ingesting any drug one wants. Libertarians think the government should stay out of our medicine cabinet (drugs), bedrooms and pocketbooks. Things like cocaine and heroin used to be legal in the US. One of the real reasons drugs are illegal in America is so that the government can pander to the interest of pharmaceutical companies by helping them keep control of the market in the USA (so that they can sell their more expensive specialized drugs rather than illegal cheaper alternatives). I believe all drugs should be legal so I think people should be able to buy drugs on the silkroad but it would be better if they could buy it out in the open from legitimate companies so that would get rid of black market violence and because the drugs would be purer without dangerous additives. So you are talking to the wrong person here about how the government should be able to spy on people in regards to drugs etc.. personally, at this time in my life I choose not to do street drugs but I think my life would not have been as worth living if in my youth I didn't experiment with things like LSD and MDMA etc..

[Also]

Yeah, well I mostly use that much anonymity because of the revelations of Edward Snowden on government mass surveillance not because I am doing anything illegal per se. Also, I am a Libertarian so many things my government considers illegal I disagree with. For instance, I disagree that drugs should be illegal. Libertarians believe that people should be free to do anything they want with their body as long as they don't harm other people; so that logically includes ingesting any drug one wants. Libertarians think the government should stay out of our medicine cabinet (drugs), bedrooms and pocketbooks. Things like cocaine and heroin used to be legal in the US. One of the real reasons drugs are illegal in America is so that the government can pander to the interest of pharmaceutical companies by helping them keep control of the market in the USA (so that they can sell their more expensive specialized drugs rather than illegal cheaper alternatives). I believe all drugs should be legal so I think people should be able to buy drugs on the silkroad but it would be better if they could buy it out in the open from legitimate companies so that would get rid of black market violence and because the drugs would be purer without dangerous additives. So you are talking to the wrong person here about how the government should be able to spy on people in regards to drugs etc..

If we can't agree on drugs I assume we could agree on other things, like child pornography and hit men for hire?

Also, there is a difference between believing that one thing that is currently illegal should be legal and believing that one has the right to break law according to his own sense of justice and feed mafia black markets that are often responsible for crimes like murder, kidnapping and human trafficking.

If someone produces his own drug and doesn't empower drug dealers and other criminal organizations I don't have much of a problem with this person, although what he is doing may be illegal, but in practice people feed criminal organizations involved in a global scheme that are responsible from bringing a lot of misery and violence to other people that usually live far from the final consumer, just so he can have his temporary pleasure with some chemical substance, and now this is hard to be defended as a legitimate moral action. People are dying so other people can snort cocaine.
In fact not only drugs, for anything that brings profit to large criminal organizations I would say the same thing.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

If we can't agree on drugs I assume we could agree on other things, like child pornography and hit men for hire?

Well, we can agree with the hit men but not necessarily the child pornography. I don't think child pornography should be illegal if the parents, of the child, and the child consent. Now, don't get me wrong I personally don't look at child pornography but as a Libertarian, based on principle, I have to support the parents' right to decide what is right for their child over supporting a bloated big government making that decision. However, if the current child pornography on the web does not have the parents' and the child's consent then it should be illegal.

Also, there is a difference between believing that one thing that is currently illegal should be legal and believing that one has the right to break law according to his own sense of justice and feed mafia black markets that are often responsible for crimes like murder, kidnapping and human trafficking.

If someone produces his own drug and doesn't empower drug dealers and other criminal organizations I don't have much of a problem with this person, although what he is doing may be illegal, but in practice people feed criminal organizations involved in a global scheme that are responsible from bringing a lot of misery and violence to other people that usually live far from the final consumer, just so he can have his temporary pleasure with some chemical substance, and now this is hard to be defended as a legitimate moral action. People are dying so other people can snort cocaine.
In fact not only drugs, for anything that brings profit to large criminal organizations I would say the same thing.

You are not putting the blame where it belongs. The blame should not be placed on people buying black market drugs but rather on the government for making it illegal. All that misery and violence is ultimately caused by the government making drugs illegal not by the consumer of black market drugs. It is naive to think one can stop the demand for drugs, hence the sales, will always be there in the market so the problem is with the government not the consumers. If drugs were legal there would be no mafia black markets or violent cartels.

[KawaiiKawaii]

I'd like to see drugs legalized and the State making a monopoly on drug sales. And I mean every drug. This way, you can tax them and make a profit for the state, you kill all the criminality related to drugs and drug trafficking and you can better control drug addiction in general by knowing tendencies better.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Well, we can agree with the hit men but not necessarily the child pornography. I don't think child pornography should be illegal if the parents, of the child, and the child consent. Now, don't get me wrong I personally don't look at child pornography but as a Libertarian, based on principle, I have to support the parents' right to decide what is right for their child over supporting a bloated big government making that decision. However, if the current child pornography on the web does not have the parents' and the child's consent then it should be illegal.



You are not putting the blame where it belongs. The blame should not be placed on people buying black market drugs but rather on the government for making it illegal. All that misery and violence is ultimately caused by the government making drugs illegal not by the consumer of black market drugs. It is naive to think one can stop the demand for drugs tje demand will always be there in the market so the problem is with the government not the consumers. If drugs were legal there would be no mafia black markets or violent cartels.

KevinB, the problem with your theory about parents deciding for their children to be in porn videos or not is that the child is a human too. Not fully conscious and not able to take decisions, but still a human. What you are saying is akin to abuse, not parenting. These acts have been proven by psychologists to have bad effects on the child, especially when he or she becomes an adult. Your child is of course your responsibility, but your child also enjoys his own personality that you should try to protect as much as possible. Having sex with him or making him "act" in porn is not protecting him.

[Also]

@KevinB: Okay, I respect your right to your opinion and I rather not prolongate this, just think your libertarianism is far too extreme for my taste, specially when it comes about children who are not mature adults but need supervision and protection.

And maybe legalizing all drugs would be a lesser evil than keeping them illegal and having criminal organizations profiting with them, but what matters to me is how one acts given the situations he is in, not to follow his utopic goals without consideration to the potential harm his actions may cause in the current situation. And in our current society if you feed criminal organizations by buying drugs you are empowering them to keep their power and to continue their ill-doing, and this is true even if it is the case that those drugs should be legalized. I wouldn't buy sparkling water if it was illegal and I knew I'd feed criminal murderous organizations that only make this world worse by doing that, despite the fact I'd believe sparkling water should be legal.

[turkojew]

Well, we can agree with the hit men but not necessarily the child pornography. I don't think child pornography should be illegal if the parents, of the child, and the child consent. Now, don't get me wrong I personally don't look at child pornography but as a Libertarian, based on principle, I have to support the parents' right to decide what is right for their child over supporting a bloated big government making that decision.

what the fuck? parents do not 'own' their children. they cant decide to use them in things that will definetly affect their pshychology negatively. are you trolling or what?