« Previous entry | Home | Next entry »

Silicon Valley's contribution to the DarkNet

darknet.jpgThere are some notable Silicon Valley developments in the peer-to-peer file-sharing industry, even if a lot of the action is being driven by techies outside of the region.

Some folks are justifying their technology because it can make it impossible for repressive or censor-prone governments to restrict the flow of digital information. The NYT, for example, has a good piece today about 28-year-old Irish programmer Ian Clarke, who lives in Scotland and five years ago introduced a software system called Freenet. It will be updated in a few months so users can share files with only those they trust. The article mentions others who have contributed to building a so-called "darknet," which that aims to shield the identities of those sharing information.

Of course, the same technology can be used as a trojan horse to circumvent music and video copyrights.

In Silicon Valley, the article mentions in passing, there are start-up companies imeem and Grouper allowing groups to share digital information. We checked out imeem and Grouper when they emerged several months ago, but only now -- in light of the Supreme Court file-sharing ruling -- are we grasping their full potential. We at SiliconBeat were a bit spooked by imeem when we tried it: We weren't really interested in giving anyone direct access to our hard-drive. There are other, easier ways to share data, we thought. But hey, if we're living in China and want to share information critical of the government, or if we want to share copyrighted music or video files privately, not a bad idea, right? Even better if you trust those you're sharing the info with, and can limit the part of the hard-drive you're opening up.

Meanwhile, here's the Merc's article today (or here) about the efforts by Bram Cohen and his team at BitTorrent, which recently transplanted to San Francisco, to search for venture capital and find legitimate ways to make money (more...)


It is also interesting to note Clarke's comments about his intentions, in particular his reference to "political dissidents" in the U.S. According to the NYT:

Though he says his aim is political - helping dissidents in countries where computer traffic is monitored by the government, for example - Mr. Clarke is open about his disdain for copyright laws, asserting that his technology would produce a world in which all information is freely shared...

..."The classic use for Freenet would be for a group of political dissidents in China, or even in the United States," he said in a telephone interview on Thursday. But he acknowledged that the software would also surely be used to circumvent copyright restrictions, adding, "It's an inevitable consequence of our design."



Comments

Isn't the real issue behind these networks that they're used *mostly* to illegally distribute copyrighted material? I've heard the argument that they have legal uses, which I don't think a lot of people dispute. But if the vast majority of use is for illegal purposes, then aren't these people being disingenuous? And if so, then how can really take them seriously in the debate over media and technology?
I believe that these groups (P2P companies, EFF, Copyleft, Downhill Battle, etc...) have a fundamental problem: they're mainly defending illegal technology that, at it's heart, is not about the American way. America is not about letting people steal content just because it's technically feasible, we're about compensating the people who invest, create and perform art fairly for their work. Obviously, there are many who argue that the system is broken and record companies are thieving scumbags, but that doesn't justify stealing content through technological means.
If these groups were serious, they would establish their own art creation and distribution systems. They've got the distribution side down, but their problem is that they don't have enough content that is compelling to the mass market.

Anonymous on August 1, 2005 12:11 PM
Comment link

Nobody likes the feeling of being watched. That is the anti-1984 syndrome underlaying the darknets. One reads of the NSA and various commercial interests analyzing traffic in the nets and compiling vast databases of who talks to whom, when and how often...this to be analyzed ex-post-facto using who knows what algorithms and infering who knows what suppositions based upon them..

Who would own or rent a house where the landlord or neighbors unknown could observe and keep records of all that one does there? Who would rent a car where the same occurred? One's use of Internet bandwidth is no different.

Terrorists and evil doers surely all have houses and cars. And surely they employ their own houses and cars to further their various evil goals. But I will not consent to being constantly watched and recorded in my own house and car merely to save leg work on the part of those government and industry officials whose task it is to defeat said evil doers.

Gan Uesli Starling on January 4, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment link
Post a comment












Remember personal info?