It's all good and well - except that Tor isn't completely anonymous either. Plenty of illegal websites been taken down because Tor (and in this case, HORNET) nodes can be compromised. Security means nothing when a group you want to hide from controls one place before shit's sent.
I agree. If a network like this is going to be of any real use, it needs to be able to provide functioning anonymity even if many (or most) nodes are controlled by an attacker. Because that'll be without any question exactly what will happen quite quickly once any decent system picks up some speed. There really is some formidable opposition to a free and decent web nowadays. I'm not even entirely happy with the concept of complete anonomity. It enables quite horrifying behavior. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to make a system usable for those who would use anonymity for legitimate reasons and at the same time exclude those who enjoy child porn or want to hire someone to kill their spouse.
I entirely agree with complete anonymity. It is definitely a weapon - to have a wide network where you can do anything without anyone knowing who you are? Unbelievably powerful. And of course, since it is a widely available weapon, people will use it both for good and evil. That is true for all technologies. However, there are two reasons I say that we do need such a completely, impenetrably anonymous network: first, there are legitimate people who need it, and hell with the way it's going I would not be surprised if many people in the US would already need such an option because they've been classified as whatever they call dissidents today, simply because of beliefs. As I said, such a thing is definitely a weapon, and one that if done properly could overthrow governments if needed (and of course, that's still for the better and the worse). Second reason? Bad people will always find a way to do bad things. There will always be distribution of child porn, hard drugs and weapons. There will always be places to hire hitmen from. All that these networks do is expose, to us folks unsavvy of the black markets, to these things - it makes it easier, but most likely it shows us that it truly does exist. It makes the black market available to any simple Joe. And that's something that is almost never mentioned in those talks - and most governments want to keep it that way. "These networks enable bad people, therefore these networks should not exist". It makes people willing to trade off the freedom of anonymity for the safety of at least not seeing these monstrosities. And look where that thinking got the US. "Those who trade freedom for safety will get neither". Bad people will always find ways to do what they want if they work hard enough at it. We don't get too many chances at having a safe network. In my opinion, such networks are the new nuclear power: should we ban nuclear reactors because nuclear bombs exist, or Fukushima/Chernobyl happened?
Hopefully once we accomplish complete anonymity and are completely exposed to these dark markets, we can easily incite more people to take action and collectively stop these insanely dark acts.
I think the nuclear thing deserves its own discussion, far from a black/white yes/no kind of deal. I also entirely agree with complete anonymity on the net. I'm just not entirely happy with some of its implications - which is true for countless other issues.
Sure, it's a whole other discussion - but it's a similar discussion with not that different implications in the long run. Anonymity is also not a black/white thing. I'm saying the black will happen anyway.
This brings to mind something I'd really like to see: it should be standard practice for ISPs to offer VMs that act as the gateways for the actual last mile connection to the user's home. It's cheaper for ISPs to offer bandwidth at their facility than to send data all the way down residential lines just to come right back. I think this could revolutionize the internet by making p2p viable for more applications and much more efficient for what it already does; how much more usable would Tor be if all three hops didn't have to loop pointlessly to someone's house (over whatever shit connection that may entail) and back? If course, I don't see this happening any time soon; customers don't know they want it. Edit: this is actually much more doable now than I thought, because it doesn't necessarily require ISP cooperation. I looked up my CenturyLink IP and it's consistent with a Qwest datacenter that offers colo; that's all I need for the "computer in the webs, interfaces at home" model I was looking for.
Sure, ISPs are known scumbags. But what makes VM providers so trustworthy? Are they outside the government's reach? If anything, it's easier to monitor them - they're all in a few buildings. A gateway-VM model would by nature require the VMs to be more distributed.