From: mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 17:36:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:Why BlackNet *IS* a Data Haven
Message-ID: <v02140b00ae3dd1760748@[204.179.131.64]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.

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.

> 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.

> 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 :)

> 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.

jim