On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 20:08 +1000, Katya Titov wrote: > Luther Blissett: > > Katya Titov: > >> Nicolas Vigier: > >>> > >>> I don't know what is the exact definition of "open Internet", but > >>> I'm not sure we should oppose that to Tor hidden services. The > >>> Tor hidden services are accessed using the internet, and they > >>> also look very open to me: anybody can access them if they know > >>> the address, using free software, based on a protocol that is > >>> documented. > >> > >> Good point. I've change "open Internet" to "public Internet". I > >> already had a note that the open Internet was "open to > >> filtering/censorship by governments and ISPs" and I think that sits > >> better with the term 'public Internet'. > > > > Both expressions are somehow misleading. What do you mean "open"? If > > you mean "general public accessible", aka, "unrestricted internet", > > first you have to consider that in most countries there is a fee > > attached to internet access so it's not public in the same sense that > > streets are. > > It does seem to be difficult to get a perfect description. Rick > suggested "commercial" which I don't really think sums it up. "Open" is > misleading to me because access is often filtered by governments or > ISPs. I see "public" as a good compromise, meaning access to the > "regular" Internet, something that the general public can get to. > Whether it is through a home DSL line or a city or Starbucks WiFi > doesn't matter too much (to me). > > > If you mean "well, accessible provided that you have access", then you > > should consider that the internet is filtered to great lengths and so > > there is no clear map of what is accessible till you try to connect. > > Yes, and I've noted in the article that "filtering/censorship by > governments and ISPs" can be performed. > > > Also, you should consider that the internet != web > > Yes, the article defines: > > Web: the portion of the Internet which is accessible via a web > browser; the World Wide Web. > > Getting this message across to non-technical people is hard. For many > the web *is* the Internet. > > > and that even if we consider the web only, there are factors such as > > nameserver completeness, websites that have private portions + public > > ones, websites that require certain software & | hardware to provide > > ordinary functionality. > > Yes, the private portions become the "deep web" in my definition. Not > "dark", just not searchable/accessible. Where software or hardware > which is not immediately available to users is involved I see that as > "dark". > > > Everything is done in the open and everything is interconnected, but > > that does not mean there is no friction. Dark is the word westerns use > > to refer to that which they do not comprehend. There is no dark and > > there is no deep, the only ones who might think this way are those who > > were captured by the .com web2.0 bullshit later 90s, early 00's. The > > problem is they are the 99% as of nowadays. > > I disagree here. The dark web is the portion which is not accessible > from regular web clients and not done in the open, e.g. Tor hidden > services and I2P eepsites. I've also noted in the article that if we > consider dark *networks* instead of just the dark web then we also > should include VPN, P2P, VoIP and other overlay networks. > > "Dark" can be associated with that which westerners do not comprehend: > that is in part, I think, what the Tor Project is trying to combat > through its "Who Uses Tor?" articles. Web 2.0 may be marketing > bullshit, but it's generally accepted and therefore needs to be > addressed. I'm hoping to document useful definitions and at the same > time dispel the myth that the dark web is many times larger than the > public web. While it's possible to just ignore the 99% it doesn't > really help the situation, and it certainly doesn't help expand the > reach and usefulness of Tor. > > That's my view. If you come up with a better definition than "public" > then please update the article! My only wish is that any other term > will be understood by and useful for the 99% as they are ultimately the > target audience. > -- > kat I've never said I'd ignore anyone. My point was: we need to do some "myth busting" and our fight is also a fight for "meanings". So IMHO "public internet" should be reserved for access which is given for anyone without fees, registration or any other formality. You need to bring your machine and it gets connected using open/public standards. Then we could talk about network standards and open/public protocols. Then we need to go back in history and recognize that there are people trying hard to address these issues and then there are lobbyists and marketing. Deep web should be given it's proper treatment, that of a mystifying word which tries to hid the fact that the immense dispersion on the networks is something extraordinary and not suited for those used to some supposed surface of the internet. A region full of unknown monsters, virii and perils. There are people very interested on creating and maintaining myths. -- 010 001 111
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk