In this essay, I look at two aspects of the block chain: (i) the practical impact of block chain permanence on content that is illegal and/or universally undesirable; and (ii) the possibility of automated block chain incentivisation for the public disclosure of private information.
Image source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public Domain
Image source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public DomainIntroduction
Something I have thought about
is the complex relationship that exists among block chain, intellectual property protection, and illicit content like: slanderous or libelous content, child porn or non-consensual adult porn.
This line of thought was recently reignited when I read the article, Can a Blockchain-powered Search Engine Take On a Leviathan Like Google?, about a start-up called Presearch that intends to launch a block chain powered decentralized search mechanism. This excerpt of the article especially caught my attention:
As the Presearch whitepaper states, “We are exploring a model that will enable Members running a Presearch browser extension (and potentially a standalone browser) to act as web crawling and indexing nodes that would build the Presearch index as they surf the web. This would enable Presearch to get around one of the most difficult crawling challenges; getting blocked by webmasters. Members running nodes will earn PRE Tokens in exchange for utilizing their computers and internet connections for Presearch.”
I intend to go back and read the whitepaper, but haven't done so yet. However, if I'm understanding right, what that means is that they would pay people in cryptocurrency to perform reconnaissance inside the walled gardens that are hidden from traditional search engines by privacy protections. This might include, for example, non-public posts in your facebook feed or subscription-based e-books that you read in your browser.
I shared the link on facebook, along with that quote, and the remark that: "someone's not going to like this."
In the remainder of this essay, I'll summarize some recent thoughts triggered by this article. The essay will examine two aspects of block chain: (i) practical impact of block chain permanence on content that is illegal, like copyrighted works, and/or universally undesirable like child porn and other videos of non-consensual exploitation; and (ii) the possibility of incentivising and automating the release of non-public information.
Image Source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public Domain
Image Source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public DomainBlock Chain Permanence
The block chain
is designed to be permanent and censorship resistant for good --- reason, but there are also cases where the block chain's permanence is less desirable.
Personally, I am conflicted about the economic and social desirability of legal protections for intellectual property. All I know is (a) that it's a complicated question and I haven't studied it enough to have a strong opinion on the matter; and (b) in the world where we live, those legal protections exist, so ignoring them is imprudent. So let's look at the interaction of copyright and the block chain...
What if, for example, a person were to use the Tor network and @social's private posting key - which is published right on its profile page - to publish the contents of a best selling book, page by page? What if they created their own anonymous account and did the same thing?
Image Source: screen grab
Image Source: screen grab
Maybe even in PDF format?
%PDF-1.4
1 0 obj <</Type /Catalog /Pages 2 0 R>>
endobj
2 0 obj <</Type /Pages /Kids [3 0 R] /Count 1>>
endobj
3 0 obj<</Type /Page /Parent 2 0 R /Resources 4 0 R /MediaBox [0 0 500 800] /Contents 6 0 R>>
endobj
4 0 obj<</Font <</F1 5 0 R>>>>
endobj
5 0 obj<</Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /BaseFont /Helvetica>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<</Length 44>>
stream
BT /F1 24 Tf 175 720 Td (Hello World!)Tj ET
endstream
endobj
xref
0 7
0000000000 65535 f
0000000009 00000 n
0000000056 00000 n
0000000111 00000 n
0000000212 00000 n
0000000250 00000 n
0000000317 00000 n
trailer <</Size 7/Root 1 0 R>>
startxref
406
%%EOF
This capability isn't unique to steemit. That's just an example. A similar capability is available in the Bitcoin block chain. I believe that IPFS may have similar capabilities for permanence with video that's protected by copyright or contains other undesirable attributes. I imagine that most, if not all, block chains have this potential.
So in the example of steemit, @steemcleaners would flag the posts to oblivion, the publisher would send Steemit, Inc a take down notice, and they'd filter it from their web site. Someone else might just take the @social key and delete the post or edit it to be blank. But... the contents are still there on the block chain. Now, who does the publisher go after? Well, maybe someone will make a slip, and the publisher will find and prosecute the person who actually published it, but still the block chain continues to exist. What next?
In Steem's case, I imagine that the publisher starts going after witnesses. Let's say they succeed. All that does is replace the top-20 witnesses with another 20. Eventually, maybe the witnesses in one country are deterred, but the rest of the world continues on and the content still exists.
In the case of IPFS, if I understand correctly, the files are fragmented so that no particular computer is holding an entire file, so the ability to identify a hosting computer basically doesn't exist. They'd have to go after viewers one at a time.
Anti-IP activists may love it (although I suspect that almost everyone has some limit as to what private information should be available in the public domain) but copyright holders, victims of slander, libel, and non-consensual video postings aren't so thrilled. As far as I can tell, though, it cannot be stopped. Once Pandora's box has been opened, it can't be closed again.
Image Source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public Domain
Image Source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public DomainIncentivising and automating the publication of private information
As I said,
this latest round of thought was prompted by an article about Presearch. In a sense, there is nothing actually new about this idea.
- Decentralized, peer to peer search has existed for years, for example: here and here. Last time I test drove a couple sites they weren't great, though. That was a couple years ago, so I assume they've improved.
- Software that harvests hidden information from the browser has existed for years.
- Cryptocurrency has existed for years.
This is just the next logical extension of those capabilities. What's new is just the combination of the three. Now, a distributed search engine is proposing to pay people for information that is published to them, privately. Presumably, the distributed search engine will then make that information available to the public in some fashion or other.
For better or worse, in principle, the capability for the public to search any information that's ever presented to anyone's browser is now possible. Among others, this includes private e-mails, social media feeds, discussion groups, and subscription-only publications.
As with the above example, if some of this information is illegal or otherwise undesirable, there really isn't a feasible way for the aggrieved party to shut it down. Even if Presearch does not implement this capability, it's probably only a matter of time until someone else does.
Image Source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public Domain
Image Source: pixabay.com, License: CC0, Public DomainConclusion
In this essay,
I am just thinking out loud. Most of what I wrote had to do with copyright, but what's true of copyright is also true of many forms of undesirable content. I hope and believe that the benefits of censorship resistance probably outweigh the harms of permanence. But in the end, it really doesn't matter. Like it or not, the world is changing in a fundamental and probably irreversible way, and as with all changes, there will be winners and losers.
I don't remember where I read it, but back in the 1990s, I remember reading the advice that we should never put anything on the Internet, or even in e-mail, that we don't want our mothers to see on the front page of the NY Times. Today, that advice rings even more true.
As a general rule, I up-vote comments that demonstrate "proof of reading".
Thank you for your time and attention.
