[p2p-hackers] In search of the Darknet....

[Michael Rogers]

Duncan B. Cragg wrote:

> So - 'Darknet' (this reminds me of those endless arguments that boil
> down to defining 'Object', by which time you've forgotten what you
> were arguing about!).

:-)

> Darknet privacy is:
>
>  1. only your friends know you're in, content 100% public
>
> ..or..
>
>  2. content restricted by some form of access control.

Maybe we can reconcile the two definitions: a darknet is an 
invitation-only network, or an invitation-only group within a larger 
network, where communication taking place inside the darknet is 
invisible to outsiders. (Or is that too vague?)

> I'm using 'privacy for small groups' to mean the ability to
> publish freely within that group (with or without that group knowing
> it was you), but (this is the difference) /not at all outside/ the
> group.

It sounds like you're using the word "group" in the same sense that 
Freenet and WASTE use the word "network". How is a single network 
containing multiple groups different from multiple networks each 
containing a single group? Shared infrastructure maybe?

> -: we can choose the diameter of our groups down to a file-by-file or
>    chat-by-chat basis.

This sounds tricky to me - if any member of the group can invite another 
member, isn't access control out of the hands of any individual member?

> Getting down to practical concerns, I'm looking for a starting
> point for my application: I need an open protocol (or open research
> on techniques) that support my number 2. above: privacy of content, not
> of participation!

So, just to clarify (sorry), you're looking for an open protocol to 
create invitation-only groups within larger content-sharing networks, as 
opposed to invitation-only networks (like WASTE)?

>    And say hi to UCL for me: I did EE/CS there, 83-86!

I'll give them a wave - the new CS building is next to engineering (we 
like to pretend).  :-)

Cheers,
Michael