-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
A. Johnson wrote:
Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about adopting better terminology.
In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might be a good time to unify Tor terminology with other similar technologies like I2P and Cjdns/Hyperboria.
It is interesting that you raise this, because we at I2P have been thinking the same thing. We discussed the issue of I2P terminology at 31C3 and decided that after 12 years of Tor/I2P coexistence, Tor had the upper hand with regard to commonplace terminology.
In our next release, we are changing most of our user-visible tunnel-related terms (I2P destination, tunnel, eepsite etc.) to instead use "Hidden services" in some way [0], to draw parallels to Tor hidden services - because as far as an end user is concerned, they do "pretty much" the same thing. And as far as we could tell, "hidden services" is now considered "too generic" for Tor [1], so it made sense to use it generically. Tags are now frozen for the 0.9.18 release, but we are still open to further discussion about terminology.
I have heard someone (forget who) propose that 'Dark Web' be dropped in favour of CipherSpace which could include all of these privacy perserving protocols, leaving terms like "OnionSpace" for Tor, "I2PSpace/EEPSpace" for I2P etc.
I am certainly in favor of this kind of collaborative approach. It's hard enough already trying to make this stuff understandable to end users (usability and UX of the tools themselves aside), without having multiple kinda-similar-but-not tools trying to do so in different ways. A "united concept front" would benefit tools _and_ users.
str4d
[0] http://zzz.i2p/topics/1780-hidden-services-done-right [1] http://www.dailydot.com/technology/tor-crowdfunding-hidden-services/
Cheers, Erik
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +0000, str4d wrote:
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
A. Johnson wrote:
Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about adopting better terminology.
In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might be a good time to unify Tor terminology with other similar technologies like I2P and Cjdns/Hyperboria.
It is interesting that you raise this, because we at I2P have been thinking the same thing. We discussed the issue of I2P terminology at 31C3 and decided that after 12 years of Tor/I2P coexistence, Tor had the upper hand with regard to commonplace terminology.
In our next release, we are changing most of our user-visible tunnel-related terms (I2P destination, tunnel, eepsite etc.) to instead use "Hidden services" in some way [0], to draw parallels to Tor hidden services - because as far as an end user is concerned, they do "pretty much" the same thing. And as far as we could tell, "hidden services" is now considered "too generic" for Tor [1], so it made sense to use it generically. Tags are now frozen for the 0.9.18 release, but we are still open to further discussion about terminology.
One of the problem with "Hidden Services" is that it focuses exclusively on the hiding. But even existing deployed Tor onion services provide other functions, such as traffic and site authentication. Some of the future services we were discussing might require access come through Tor but not hide the server at all. All of these different properties are about providing for traffic and routing, security properties that are commonly understood for data (e.g., confidentiality,authentication,integrity). Tor, and I think I2P, tend to focus on traffic and route confidentiality, which is more commonly called anonymity when thinking about the client and hidden services when thinking about the server. Thus, for a truly more general term I would suggest 'traffic security', which is what I have called this class of security properties for some time.
I have heard someone (forget who) propose that 'Dark Web' be dropped in favour of CipherSpace which could include all of these privacy perserving protocols, leaving terms like "OnionSpace" for Tor, "I2PSpace/EEPSpace" for I2P etc.
I am certainly in favor of this kind of collaborative approach. It's hard enough already trying to make this stuff understandable to end users (usability and UX of the tools themselves aside), without having multiple kinda-similar-but-not tools trying to do so in different ways. A "united concept front" would benefit tools _and_ users.
+1
although the current purpose was not to come up with an alternative to "Dark Web" since that should die as a misguided attempt to glom together multiple technical concepts not just a loaded pejorative term for a clear technical concept. As such it is simply the things that can be reached by .onion addresses over Tor that we were trying to improve the terminology for, not the more general properties. Cf. my above suggestions for my take on that.
aloha, Paul
It is interesting that you raise this, because we at I2P have been thinking the same thing. We discussed the issue of I2P terminology at 31C3 and decided that after 12 years of Tor/I2P coexistence, Tor had the upper hand with regard to commonplace terminology.
In our next release, we are changing most of our user-visible tunnel-related terms (I2P destination, tunnel, eepsite etc.) to instead use "Hidden services" in some way [0], to draw parallels to Tor hidden services - because as far as an end user is concerned, they do "pretty much" the same thing. And as far as we could tell, "hidden services" is now considered "too generic" for Tor [1], so it made sense to use it generically. Tags are now frozen for the 0.9.18 release, but we are still open to further discussion about terminology.
Ha, it seems kind of ironic that I2P would adopt “hidden services” just as people in Tor are talking about moving away from it. I would think that the same arguments against using those terms in Tor would apply to I2P (namely, it’s scary-sounding, and it’s general). In fact, *I* thought “onionsite” was a good term for the same reasons that I think that “eepsite” is good (namely, it doesn’t have negative connotations, and it’s specific to the technology).
I have heard someone (forget who) propose that 'Dark Web' be dropped in favour of CipherSpace which could include all of these privacy perserving protocols, leaving terms like "OnionSpace" for Tor, "I2PSpace/EEPSpace" for I2P etc.
I am certainly in favor of this kind of collaborative approach. It's hard enough already trying to make this stuff understandable to end users (usability and UX of the tools themselves aside), without having multiple kinda-similar-but-not tools trying to do so in different ways. A "united concept front" would benefit tools _and_ users.
There was a recent discussion among some Tor people where the “Private Web” was recommended as a good general replacement for the “Dark Web”. Perhaps the “Private Net” could also replace the “Dark Net” if you don’t want to limit yourself to the Web. “CipherSpace” didn’t come up as an option, but I have to say that I don’t really care for it. It sounds overly technical and also collides with the use of “cipherspace” used in cryptography to denote the set of messages that constitute valid ciphertext. That’s just my opinion, though!
Best, Aaron
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:36:35PM -0500, A. Johnson wrote: [snip]
I have heard someone (forget who) propose that 'Dark Web' be dropped in favour of CipherSpace which could include all of these privacy perserving protocols, leaving terms like "OnionSpace" for Tor, "I2PSpace/EEPSpace" for I2P etc.
I am certainly in favor of this kind of collaborative approach. It's hard enough already trying to make this stuff understandable to end users (usability and UX of the tools themselves aside), without having multiple kinda-similar-but-not tools trying to do so in different ways. A "united concept front" would benefit tools _and_ users.
There was a recent discussion among some Tor people where the “Private Web” was recommended as a good general replacement for the “Dark Web”. Perhaps the “Private Net” could also replace the “Dark Net” if you don’t want to limit yourself to the Web. “CipherSpace” didn’t come up as an option, but I have to say that I don’t really care for it. It sounds overly technical and also collides with the use of “cipherspace” used in cryptography to denote the set of messages that constitute valid ciphertext. That’s just my opinion, though!
As I said in my previous response to str4d "Dark Web" is not just a term, but an attempt to refer to a (pseudo)concept that should die. I have searched some and not been able to trace the origins of the term, but it smacks of punditry. It is generally used as a singular term but to connote whatever mishmash of various classes of technical designs, online commercial and cultural groups, political agendas, etc. the speaker intends at the moment. I have not seen a reasonable single definition that makes sense for the things that people throw under its extension. The original definitions of 'darknet' and 'deep web', which I have traced, do not apply well. Unfortunately, many reasonable and intelligent people have now collectively bought into the misapprehension that "Dark Web" actually refers to a class of systems and think that the problem is the name rather than the concept itself.
The appropriate response to the term is not to give it a better one but to always immediately say that it is something made up by pundits to pretend they are referring to a specific part of the Internet but that does not actually correspond to reality. Then try to respond to your best, most generous guess of what your interlocuter might have been trying to say, making such clarifications as needed. We should not accept its use for the sake of whatever the current point is. We do a disservice to the technologies and their users if we do.
aloha, Paul
-
A. Johnson -
Paul Syverson -
str4d