Dark sites of all types still continue to run uninhibited for the most part. From my readings, the major or at least known/researched security holes have been plugged already by the developers, and the rest of convictions have happened because of user error, not the technology involved.
If memory serves me correctly, one particular pedophile abuser was caught after years of being investigated because he was identified through skin marks (I want to say it was freckles on his hand, though I don't recall the exact details of the article) that led investigators to him, not anything technological.
I'm a proponent of total anonymity online because it allows for whistleblowers to leak information that is untraceable to them (again, without consideration of human error). In the case of Wikileaks, for example, even though they weren't on an anonymous network, it still led to the largest classified information leaks known, from NSA tools to national and international communications between heads of states, diplomats and everyone in between. The general consensus was that it was a good thing. I don't necessarily agree with that, but one can't discount its value.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/13/shining-a-li...
From what I recall, most of these TOR sites are only taken offline because of some server misconfiguration or some other opsec weakness in the people who run these sites.
Seems a bit disingenuous to do this.
Why not sell drugs as a cop to arrest people for buying them... er wait... they do that too.
I agree with you that selling a dimebag to a teenager to bust them is shitty and shouldn't be done. But there's a world of difference between busting kids for weed and catching pedophiles. If they're taking these people off the streets I really do not care if they're "disingenuous" to get them.
When you let the rules slip eventually that slippage will be used against you.
History shows this...
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
If you think that running a sting operation to catch pedophiles is going to lead to a Third Reich-esque roundup and extermination of minorities I really don't even know what to say.
The patriot act and the revoking of rights without due process was sold as something to fight terrorists. Now we have common street criminals being charged as street terrorists to circumvent due process.
It simply is fact that govt is the most serious threat to citizens. This is why the constitution was created and the nation was architected as a constitutionally bound republic.
This tripe of "think of the children" has always been used to get more power by govts and will continue to happen.
I suggest an alternative: how about judging people by the harm that they have committed to others rather than their race, attraction, opinions, etc?
If we allow the FBI to distribute child pornography, under this rubric we are basically allowing them to commit child abuse. We allow law enforcement to commit some acts -- like buying or attempting to sell illegal drugs -- which would normally be crimes. But we would find acts of actual harm to innocents by law enforcement abhorrent. For example, if an FBI agent posed as a hitman online and then actually committed the contracted murders, that would be abhorrent and not a legitimate law-enforcement use.
Either distributing CP is child abuse or it isn't. If it is, the FBI shouldn't be doing it irrespective of how many criminals they may catch by doing so, because they are further victimizing innocents. If it isn't, that calls into question the basis on which distribution of CP is exempted from First Amendment protection.
Oh wait, I forgot. Different rules apply to those in power.
If it was I wouldn't have a problem with it. The reality is, by running the sites, they are actively enabling what they consider harmful.
Consider other examples of police stings. When doing drugs, they often use actual drugs because the mere presence of drugs at a sting is not an issue. But when dealing with more dangerous material, they use fakes to ensure that people don't get hurt, and the times when they haven't used fakes it has been considered extremely bad and had people push for policies to change it.
In this particular case, the sites are not like drugs which are inherently harmless just by being present, but are far more dangerous material which results in significant harm to those the police allow to continue to be victimized.
Imagine if police ran a human trafficking front and actually kidnapped people, justifying it by saying they were working to get the guys running the whole thing. Would that be acceptable?
I think not.
If there's truly a guaranteed secure way of doing things, the government would act a lot quicker.
The sense of security in anonymity is not false as long as the dark web continues to proliferate its services.
Your conclusion is invalid without providing further proof. If you want counter-proof, just visit the dark web one of these days. it's as vibrant as ever.
They need other people to use it to be effective. They aren't going to shut it down until they have a replacement. They might even control >50% of the network.
even if you had some perfectly anonymous, uncensorable medium with zero security flaws, people would still make mistakes and get caught. it's never impossible for the state to catch someone, but it can certainly be too expensive to be worth it. this is a feature imo, not a bug. it should be expensive to investigate people.
This is correct.
However, the building blocks of circumvention technologies (et. al) and the building blocks of basic consumer Internet services and communications channels are indistinguishable.
You can't preemptively disable secure, covert communications and also provide rich, secure Internet services (such as banking, corporate email, etc.)
It is very much "Free Speech or Stone Age".[1]
[1] https://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/06/free-speech-or...
Agreed. However, the building blocks of that authentication (and other security protocols involved) are the same building blocks used for covert communications.