×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Dark Side of the Web

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the reefer-madness-is-back dept.

The Internet 156

Barence writes "Beneath the web pages indexed by Google lies an online world that few know exists. It's a realm of huge, untapped reserves of valuable information containing sprawling databases, hidden websites and murky forums. It's a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind's biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone. The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society. The deep web is also the new frontier for those who want to rival Google in the field of search." The melodrama is tempered, though: "The deep web isn’t half as strange or sinister as it sounds. In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

156 comments

interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (1, Insightful)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463404)

TFA:

>terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone.

No, actually, speak for yourself!

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (4, Insightful)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463426)

Good job! Now the FBI will know they don't need to monitor you, as you obviously abhor child porn and terrorism!

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463508)

Why not? As long as he doesn't have a Congressional IP.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463882)

No, but I am interested in the "porn bomb", ie a device that releases a massive amount of porn when set off. Can you imagine how much less bullshit people in the hardcore religious societies would have to put up with if you set off one of these in their place of worship?

Holy shit, a vagina that I didn't have marry anyone in order to see, this is awesome!

Re:porn bomb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31465314)

Not always a good thing, as http://www.goatse.fr/ proves quite plainly.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464610)

But does he abhor them enough to support trampling all over the rights of everyone else? That's the true test of a patriot.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (1)

X-Power (1009277) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463446)

Did you just misspell in fear of "homeland security"?

In that case, don't you think quoting the text with proper spelling kinda foiled your plans?

Terrorism (1, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463450)

I find it ironic that in the online world there are places where the Terrorists and those who support them are calling us, the Freedom Loving People, terrorists !

By the original Terrorists I mean those who strap bombs to themselves and go KABOOM ! taking themselves with innocent people around them.

What I find ironic is THEY call us terrorists !!

Re:Terrorism (5, Insightful)

BluenoseJake (944685) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463958)

I find it amazing that you don't understand why. The US and it's allies have been fucking around in Middle eastern affairs for decades. I mean really, what in god's name made the UN believe that it was ok to throw a few million Jews in the middle of several different groups of people that hate them? Then the US helps arm them to the teeth, and supports israeli incursions into Palestine. The US also supported Iraq during the 10 year long war with Iran, and then at the end, Iraq needs help to rebuild, and what does the US do? Go fuck yourself Iraq. They did the same thing in Afghanistan, supplied the rebels with arms and training against the USSR, then dropped them like a hot potato after the war. The US then unilaterally invades Iraq in 2003, lied about the reasons, and proceeded to try to force their beliefs on the Iraqis, with no problem using torture to achieve their goals. I'd hate "the Freedom Loving People" too, if I was them. You're like the ultimate douchebags, take what you want, do what you want in the name of "National Security" and then leave your targets hanging, just like the douche that drops roofies in a girls drink.

Re:Terrorism (0, Offtopic)

crazycheetah (1416001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464374)

Flamebait? Really? Damn mods. This is at least Interesting, if not somewhat Informative.

You* would do yourself a favor by putting yourself in the shoes of those who do see it this way. Open up a little bit to people who are different, and maybe more different people will actually get along with you instead of just learning to hate you.

Knowing that the US has done shit like this is somewhat angering to me, a US citizen. Sad that people see it that way, as well.

* the mods.

Re:Terrorism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464594)

As opposed to letting the Muslims kill off the Jews and succeed at what the Nazis only dreamed of.

Fuck you.

They've been wanting to kill them for centuries and giving them back their ancestral homeland (minus the Temple Mount, which is a Muslim intrusion into their holy sites - they can't even worhip where their temple once stood)

1967 Israel gets attacked in what the Muslims hoped would be HOLOCAUST 2 but the Jews MIRACLOUSLY fight back and win, damn straight they want a buffer zone.

Maybe the US should get a clue from them about Mexico.

The Holocaust happened.
The Muslims want the remaining Jews dead.

NEVER AGAIN!

(I'm not Jewish, but Christian, and we are getting slaughtered in Nigeria, Sudan, etc. Jews and Christians of the world UNITE you have nothing to lose but your dhimmitude).

June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31465358)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Re:Terrorism (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465394)

Christianity says Jews are the Chosen People so we must support them at ALL costs and be horny for the Apocalypse.

That superstition just happens to conflict with Islam, an even more (and that's quite an accomplishment!) toxic supersition.

The only problem with such a religious war is that innocent atheists may be harmed in the process.

Re:Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464266)

Eye of the beholder eg. perspective

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463510)

http://www.tvdizi.net

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464554)

I heard anontalk.com was better to find the child porn.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (1)

bmecoli (963615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463920)

terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed. Interested? You're not alone.

Fuck yeah I am! *fap fap fap fap fap*

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (5, Insightful)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463922)

Why is this comment modded Insightful when the quote has been manipulated to give it another meaning?

It’s a world where academics and researchers might find the data required to solve some of mankind’s biggest problems, but also where criminal syndicates operate, and terrorist handbooks and child pornography are freely distributed.

At the same time, the underground web is the best hope for those who want to escape the bonds of totalitarian state censorship, and share their ideas or experiences with the outside world.

Interested? You’re not alone.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464596)

It's not my fault the quote was manipulated. I was quoting the poorly-worded Slashdot article.

And it should have been modded "funny."

Pretty much ruined it for me (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464000)

I was thinking about exploring those 'darknets' but child porn? I don't even want my browser pre-caching its way into those websites much less directly stumble onto one. At least I was warned. Anyone foolish enough to go there can't expect to feel like a victim if they get caught in a dragnet for showing up on a bad site's web access log.

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464066)

Please!!!!

Re:interested in teroirsm and cihld pron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464100)

As in... has not this been discussed to death?

Been there, done that (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463422)

It's called the Metaverse, created by Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash. We now know it as Second Life.

http://www.robotstxt.org/ (3, Insightful)

GuyFawkes (729054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463460)

http://www.robotstxt.org/ [robotstxt.org]

Says it all really, no need for a melodramatic "article" trying to draw parallels between the non indexed and page ranked portion of the net, and kiddie porn.

Some of us just don't want google indexing out stuff on general principles.

FX, types "brain tumour" into google

up pops page full of links asking me if I want to buy a brain tumour on fleabay...

Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463970)

Once I wanted to see if my DansGuardian installation was working properly, so I typed "sex" in to Google. One of the ads that came up was from eBay. It said, "Looking for sex? Find it on eBay!"

Re:http://www.robotstxt.org/ (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465140)

Perhaps they don't index that data (although not necessarily true for some engines). That doesn't mean it's not crawled (and kept for another reasons).

ObPinkFloyd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463464)

There is no dark side of the web really
Matter of fact its all dark.

It's hidden on a purpose (1, Interesting)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463496)

From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video - there's next to zero informational value in this undernet. As someone once said "Information wants to be free" and if it isn't let it die.

The real problem which this article doesn't even touch is that sometimes it's getting very hard to find the information buried in millions of pages Google returns to your query.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (5, Interesting)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463522)

Loads of stuff is hidden on purpose...config files, site member info, etc etc. I "accidentally hacked" a law company's MySQL DB once because their phpmyadmin wasn't hidden properly and showed up on a Google search for an obscure error message I searched for. Hidden-From-Google != Nasty-Child-Pornographers......

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464038)

Hidden properly??

Why in the world is it available on the INTERNET in the first place???

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (5, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463532)

You must be new here. "Darknets" have been around since the start of the internet, and there's nothing necessarily illicit about it. Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc. And if you're looking at websites rather than places or resources, you haven't even scratched the surface.

Basically, people like to communicate online, but that doesn't give you (or Google) the right to index it or even access it just 'cos it's on the internet - whether you like it or not, it's their communications not yours. Don't see value in it? Don't spend your time there. Think it's illegal? Call the cops with details. Just like IRL.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464418)

If you mean legal rights, actually, Google does have that right. If you mean some other magical kind of moral rights (read nonexistent) then I apologize.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464606)

Sure, some people take advantage of the privacy, just like some of our neighbours/colleagues/priests do, but that doesn't mean we put cameras in every house or monitor every phone call to catch the terrorists/kiddie-fiddlers/drug-users/speeding-drivers/child-punishers/blashphemers/etc.

It doesn't? What country do you live in?

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464986)

Clearly not the UK, for starters...

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464708)

While I agree with all you say in terms of privacy rights, I disagree with things being "off limits" just because it's implied.

If you put data on the internet which isn't access protected or encrypted, then like it or not it is accessible to the public. Putting a robots.txt on your site is like putting a "please don't read me" sticker on a book and then leaving it on the bus; sure it's a common courtesy to obey the label, but you can't really start citing invasion-of-privacy spiels if someone doesn't.

If you want data to be on the internet but private, protect it properly. If you leave it wide open with nothing but a robots.txt to it's defence then don't come complaining when it gets looked at.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (4, Insightful)

Iyonesco (1482555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464812)

"Think it's illegal? Call the cops with details."

You: "Officer, I was interested in these so called 'dark nets' so looking around I happened to find a website with child porn on it. Clicking about the site I found there were literally hundreds of images so I thought I best report it to the police."

Police: "Please stay by your computer and we'll be around to arrest you shortly. Enjoy your 25 years in prison."

I think you need to review the "Don't talk to the police" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]

If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on. If you see somebody being raped keep walking. If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them. The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (4, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465114)

Police: "Please stay by your computer and we'll be around to arrest you shortly. Enjoy your 25 years in prison."

That has never happened to me. I've called the police three times over finding child porn online. The first time was in the mid-90's when I found some on a local (popular) BBS, and the police were concerned but utterly clueless on what to do. This was before they had an actual "cybercrimes" division. I don't think anything ever happened with that one. The second time I called on another complaint, they referred it up to the FBI, I don't know if anything ever happened because I never went back to the site again for obvious reasons. The third time, the local police took all my information, said thank you, and I never heard about it again. I'm guessing they handled it so nonchalantly the third time because they finally got their act together, and knew what to do.

Never once did the FBI knock on my door, or the police harp at me or treat me like a criminal.

If you see a house being burgled, ignore it and continue on. If you see somebody being raped keep walking. If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them. The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.

Are you a sociopath? If I saw any of the above I would try to help, especially in cases of direct harm, like rape and children in trouble. It is my civic, and human duty to step in. I couldn't sleep at night if I just walked away and tried to forget it. But then again I'm the type who stop and try to help injured animals, and swerve to avoid hitting squirrels.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (1)

catman (1412) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465594)

If you see a child in trouble, absolutely never go near them. The last one is particularly important since children are the greatest risk to your freedom in the current political climate and should never be approached under any circumstances.

I've seen people act as if they really believed that. A small boy crying desperately, any parent would realize that he was distressed. Plenty of adults within hearing, nobody seemed to care. I talked to him, found out he was lost in his new neighborhood and helped him find his way. And yes, I did think about the possibility that I would be taken for a child molester, but - suppose he didn't find his way and was picked up by someone not out to help him?

Adopt a long term perspective... (2, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463544)

Just maybe not everyone in the world wants to be Google's bitch and allow them to mine their precious information for profit. Information may want to be free, but information is also power. Secrets are valuable to those who hold them, and in a near future world where information becomes increasingly more valuable, those who hold the secrets will be the most powerful.

Now just ask yourself, are you willing to submit to the likes of Google and give up the right and freedom to decide what to do with your information? Your secrets?

Do we continue to sell our individuality, our identity so cheaply?

Re:Adopt a long term perspective... (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464968)

Really? I thought openness and sharing information is what made the various open movements so great and powerful/valuable, like the open source software movement. Single individual collaboration between multiple individuals.

Re:Adopt a long term perspective... (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465004)

Whoops, supposed to be arrows there, didn't notice the Extrans selection, nice feature. :D

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463660)

there's next to zero informational value in this undernet

Maybe you just didn't look in the right places.

It's possible.

Re:It's hidden on a purpose (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464502)

From what I've seen and heard this 'hidden' information is hidden on a purpose - most such sites I've ever encountered are trafficking (child) porn, software, audio and video

My first reaction was to respond "bullshit!", but on further reflection I realized that parent post is legitimate within the context of an extremely narrow point of view. It isn't so much an example of bullshit as an example of limited thinking of someone who knows very little about a subject, but thinks he knows it all.

As a writer of fiction, I use the darknet extensively: I've got hidden wikis and websites where I collect information I don't yet want to share publicly, and where I compose rough drafts that I want to share with only a selected few. I am sure that I am not alone in this approach. I can't imagine any new authors of the 21st century who are not doing the same kind of thing.

Most of the darknet is benign. Most of it is the aggregate of the huge number of private conversations that go on within the global crowd. There is nothing sinsiter about this, nor does it contradict the "information wants to be free" imperative. Since for the most part these conversations have to do with things that might eventually become information, but are in their nascent period, where they are confused, incomplete pieces that a private group is trying to make sense of.

I learned a lot from this article (4, Funny)

macbuzz01 (1074795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463504)

The author explains that there is a lot of content behind password protected sites. I had no idea that google didn't know your password!

I heard something about a robots.txt file somewhere before, but I thought that all robots where smarter than me anyway.

I also learned about something called freeweb that may or may not be used for good or bad things. I then learned about TOR which also may or may not be used for good or bad things.

This article really opened my eyes to the vastness of the Internets

I know a place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463506)

[ominous music, thunder and lightning]
A dark and foreboding place with over 5000 pages of scientifically useful information with more than 60000 links between them, all craftily hidden ...

[suddenly the music stops] ... behind a robots.txt file. Hmm. Not so interesting.

Actually, it's not that dark or foreboding, it would just be a pain if Google tried to index it all because the algorithm they use would mean the key pages for a particular item (i.e. where items were actually defined) would end up down the ranking list because of the way that the links work in this particular dataset. The top pages of the site are indexed and people can use the specialized search tools there to find what they are looking for, or they can hop directly to an entry using a predictable URL if they know its name.

Oh, and if a bot wants to ignore the robots.txt file they can get away with it for a little while ... and then they get tossed into a tarpit. [Queue the ominous music again ... BWHAHAHAHA!]

Time Travel? (4, Interesting)

scross (1621251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463530)

The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...

Re:Time Travel? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463572)

Either the poster traveled back in time or the date and month are transposed. I'm betting on time travel.

The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...

Re:Time Travel? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463628)

The american date format must die.

Re:Time Travel? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464232)

The american date format must die.

Quoted for truth.

Re:Time Travel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464330)

Oh this is such horseshit. It needs to die in comp-sci circles only. For proper sorting.
Outside of that it's fine. The format is written how it's spoken.
If someone asks you when you were born, you don't say:
"1964, 22nd, May", you say, "May 22nd, 1964" - which is the American format. Enough.

Re:Time Travel? (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464450)

Where I live, we would say 22nd May 1964 (it is not an English speaking country, so we did away with the commonly used "of"). Why is this format nice? Because it is consistent. Day is before month and month is before year.

Re:Time Travel? (4, Insightful)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464568)

If someone asks you when you were born, you don't say:
"1964, 22nd, May", you say, "May 22nd, 1964" - which is the American format. Enough.

I would say the 22nd of May, 1964.

When someone asks you for the time, do you tell him in HH:SS:MM format? The units must be ordered either from least to most significant (dd-mm-yyyy) or most to least significant (yyyy-mm-dd). I don't care which you chose. But don't put the least significant unit in _the_middle_!!!

See this horrible Open Office bug on the subject:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5556 [openoffice.org]

Re:Time Travel? (2, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464538)

Personally I think written dates should take the form year month day, ex. 2010 March 13th. Like decimal numbers.

Re:Time Travel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464804)

we should fix the basis as well. it is mind-boggling stupid to use base 10 for the year, base 12 for the month, and a mix of basis 28,29,30 and 31 for the days.

Re:Time Travel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31465056)

Or the article is supposed to be dark for another six months.

Re:Time Travel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463638)

He used a time machine to travel to the near-future where the even more scary laws coming up in the next few months get dropped because they got abused.

Hurray for non-retroactive laws... or some..thing.

Re:Time Travel? (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464682)

You have missed something. There's plenty of available information on time travel in the dark side of the web, or at least there will be in 6 months time.

Re:Time Travel? (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465428)

> The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...

You need to spend more time looking into the info available on the darknets then, clearly. You have missed something. The truth is out there.

this article is a bad idea. (3, Interesting)

SinShiva (1429617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463534)

there is no mystery to this 'deep web'. massive data reserves? quite likely. personal, but unsecured servers hosting copyrighted content? even more likely.

This kind of article will only make things worse for a future defendant trying to explain he wasn't coordinating with 'the deep' in the distribution of his movies from his computer to his Mythbuntu box.

Why include Deep Web? (2, Interesting)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463582)

Darknets are a concern. What is the link with the Deep Web? The only connection seems to be that they're both unindexed by search engines.

I thought the article might get to the point by the last page, but it was still talking about child protection and terrorism (in company databases???) I had wondered whether this confusion was down to an incautious academic, but the doesn't seem to suggest it: http://ai.arizona.edu/research/terror/ [arizona.edu]

About Privacy (4, Insightful)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463590)

The deep web and its 'darknets' are a new battleground for those who want to uphold the right to privacy online, and those who feel that rights need to be sacrificed for the safety of society

Corporations, wealthy individuals and people in power keep their right to privacy. That's not good for the "safety of society". See the ACTA negotiation. Most of the calls about the future of society are made in a non transparent way, by corporations, the psychopaths that run them and corrupt politicians. If I don't keep my right to privacy ( and this looks like a lost cause) then I want them to lose it as well. I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board. I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database. I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.

Re:About Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463790)

The entire point of money and power is to buy privacy and fame on your own terms. You can want anything you like, but until you get money or power your preferences don't matter. Once you get one or the other you will, of course, be able to pry into the lives of people with less than you have.

Re:About Privacy (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463794)

What you ask for is worthless without any way to reliably verify it. The real answer is true privacy for all.

Re:About Privacy (2, Insightful)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464126)

I agree with that, but the message people in power is throwing around is that privacy is a lost cause... for us.

If they realized that in that case we are not willing to allow them to keep their own privacy and anonymity, they may change their minds.

In fact, it may be a good idea to keep individuals privacy, but making institutions and corporations transparent.

Re:About Privacy (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464480)

I actually could not help pondering that exact quote, particularly what it is missing. Those who wish to sacrifice the right to online privacy in order to make profits, such as the entertainment industry or advertisers; or to find and oppress dissidents for whatever reason.

Re:About Privacy (2, Insightful)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464664)

I want a full public database with detailed information about every dollar owned and every move made by politicians and members of a corporation board. I want every government contract to be published on an easily searchable database. I want all meetings between corporation boards and/or government officials transcribed and published on another publicly search able database.

Before you ask for more intrusion of gov't into corporate affairs, step back and realize most corporations are small businesses owned by regular people.

the dark side of man'kind' (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463592)

at least 1000 years worth. it's in the process of being 'sent back' now.

all of these earthquakes (many many more than are under reported on cnn), there must be a volcano or 2 in there somewhere.

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators. the newclear powered big flash is happening now, as we continue to pretend. see you on the other side of it? (a 1000 years of light?)

That's computer-science speak? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31463632)

> In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."

Spare me your mumbo jumbo, doctor!

In other news... (3, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463688)

Vast collections of literature (many, many LoCs worth) exist outside amazon.com containing esoteric theories, morbid historical narratives and subversive ideas.

What is the problem? (5, Insightful)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463810)

If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?

The vast majority of people who use onion routing are very cautious people, so very few will be stupid enough to leave a trail which could identify them (such as a payment) as doing anything which is seriously controversial or illegal. It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks.

If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography.

The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents. Instead, politicians and police chiefs tend to focus on matters which score politicial points and win votes; parents are not an acceptable target because they constitute a major component of the electorate. Claming to fight child pornography is much easier for politicians and police chiefs, as they will not lose significant support and they can easily claim a victory without any risk of being exposed as liars; after all, who is going to check the evidence?

Re:What is the problem? (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464670)

If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?

The problem is that it offends people who love reading about these stories. Those who are not offended enough to really care will still go along with those who do for fear of being targeted. We live in a democracy, ergo the will of the vocal minority will make it illegal. Moreover, this same will leads to draconian restrictions and state surveillance of the internet and indeed the general population.

The "problem" here is less the child pornographers than it is the people who go into irrational emotional meltdowns whenever someone mentions the password("pedophiles") and who then proceed in their hysteria to tear down the great society that has been built over the last 200 years. Child pornography is at worst an unpleasant nuisance. These crusaders on the other hand are a direct and immediate threat to our way of life--or at least what our way of life used to be.

Re:What is the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464792)

Now there is also the issue of teenagers producing what is considered child pornography. I think this will become the growing segment of 'child porn' for which people are convicted. People sexually abusing very young children happens, but I think it's rare in comparison.

When teenagers are abusing themselves we can't really convict the producers in a way that is proportionate to the crime. Instead we go after people in possession of the material. This does nothing more than grow an underground industry because we will only ever be able to find a very tiny percentage of possessors and not punish the producers.

If anyone wants a stable they should go into the law enforcement industry. Politicians will continue to sell us all on the idea that more cops lurking around will protect us, but all it really does is create something like the gestapo. An environment of fear, bureaucracy, wrongful convictions (to justify it's existence), ...

Re:What is the problem? (1, Insightful)

kz45 (175825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465032)

"If child pornography is being freely distributed amongst anonymous networks of paranoid people, what is the problem?"

Because children are abused during the making of child pornography. You really don't understand this?

"It would be absurd to suggest that anybody is going to profit from producing child pornography and distributing it through anonymous networks."

I bet it still happens. Child porn is highly illegal and as a result, it probably has a high value on the black market. You could easily make payment arrangements outside the anonymous network (hell, some might even charge for access).

"If somebody produced child pornography as a "hobby" (instead of for profit, which would result in a swift arrest anyway), it's pretty obvious that the producer would produce the pornography for themself regardless of whether they distributed it. So again, anonymous networks are not contributing to a problem, nor is the alleged availability of child pornography."

If it allows anyone to pass around child pornography without getting caught, it does contribute to the problem. These people may have gotten caught if they weren't able to pass it around undetected.

"The majority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are the parents of the child. If people genuinely wanted to stop child abuse, they would focus on protecting children from abusive parents."

We already do. Child protective services does a good job of investigating abusive parents. It's also not always the parent. Many times, it's a friend of the parents/family (or even siblings/cousins).

Some years ago... (4, Informative)

bagsta (1562275) | more than 4 years ago | (#31463988)

... I came across to this nice article [searchlores.org] regarding deep web. It has some techniques on how to search, access and exploit deep web. It is worth to look also the other articles of this site...

here is an analogy of the danger to consider (0, Offtopic)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464072)

Remember, this is an analogy using an unrelated but example with hindsight already established, unlike what this article is about.

The idea of the stock market was to allow people in invest in companies they believed in, sort of a put your money where you mouth is vote.
But due to the higher and higher levels of abstraction and manipulation at these higher levels of abstraction, putting your money in companies you believed in, is no longer what moves the market. Instead there have been some very bad things resulting in the manipulations of the markets at these higher abstract levels.
You might not even know where your investment is being put, had you handed it over to someone else to do for you, financial institutes and packages. Examples of very bad results include The Trillion Dollar Bet that drained Southeast Asia, including Indonesia (cia reported 88% Muslim) and gave rise to the repercussions of 911 (don't argue - follow the money instead, Worldcom, Enron, etc. some of the losers in the gamble) and Bernard Madoff's [wikipedia.org] multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

So this deep dark net.... it may not be so bottom line (money) connected, or maybe some of it is with insider trading info, but the results eventually show in the open.
And clearly the saying, "what we make we can break" applies here regarding anonymity, a lock that can be broken, as locks are for honest people.

Its not like governments don't have their own means of inside communications, of which if the public knew what all was communicated, there would be opposition as well.
It comes down to what humans will do, good or bad, where the only difference is in what tools they use to do so.

And the higher the level of abstraction being used ... the more damage it can result in. Good things generally don't require such sneaking around, spy vs. spy... And in the virtual world, what does it matter really matter, unless it has real world results?

At what point in technology advancement will thought police enter the picture? Or perhaps that question should be in the past tense.

What does the article really accomplish? More players in the spy vs. spy game. Absolutely nothing more! Advertising the dark web.
Why increase the number of players?

The solution to the trillion dollar bet was to release the formula used into the public hands, effectively nullifying its ability to be used in such a damaging manner.

NOYBnets (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464090)

It is like going to garage sales. You can expect to see a ton of the same old garbage, but usually someone has 'stored' something they don't care about but you really want. Occassionally there are priceless buried treasures that should be shared with the whole world. If marketers could regularly go through them all, it would provide unparalled insight into what we buy and store. Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending on your point of view) everyone doesn't get to ramble through our garage unless we give them access or they break-in.

They are not really "darknets", a more accurate name is NOYBnets. (None Of Your Business)

BBS, IRC (2, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464134)

If you still remember how to use those BBSs, the IRCs, then you can get back into the 'darknet' world I guess, though today it is also about appearing/disappering websites and botnets. Botnets like Zeus got that whole 'FreeNet' idea and have their own implementation, only it's not exactly free.

13% of the web explored by search engines? (1)

heidaro (1392977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464226)

I was recently told by an academic in computer security that only about 13% of the web are indexed by search engines such as Google. Does anyone know anything about this?

Re:13% of the web explored by search engines? (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464714)

and how exactly do they know the number of non-indexed pages? it's not as if google could do a "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sites WHERE indexed=FALSE" on their database, because the basic idea is that these sites are not in any extern databases.

Re:13% of the web explored by search engines? (1)

jandoedel (1149947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465290)

easy, just do a SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE not in (SELECT * from indexed);

alt roots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464270)

the search engines don't crawl the alt roots either! that means that there are AT LEAST FIVE WHOLE PAGES they've missed there!

not really (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464328)

I made my forum/website invisible to search engines because I only want members coming from one single place which I have a link on. Then only certain members join and it's actually quite nice and peaceful. That's really all there is to it. No terrorists or anything.

Bottom line (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464616)

So the bottom line is there is more private data then public data floating around.

Go figure. *snooze*

Don't be fooled (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31464788)

Darknets were invented by physicists to account for a discrepancy in the equations for global entropy.
Now that Hawking has shown that black holes don't remove information from the universe after all, the theoretical requirement for darknets no longer exists.

Almost as outrageous are recent attempts to rationalize cat-5 cabling woes using so called 'string' theory, conveniently unverifiable because their FORTRAN compilers don't support more that 7 dimensions.

Slow news day? (1)

Don Faulkner (138856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464806)

It must be a slow news day for something so technical to show up as a news article. But then again, the article has all of the necessary alarmist features, so I guess they had to let it through.

Must be that time of year again (1)

MattGWU (86623) | more than 4 years ago | (#31464992)

Every 12, 16 months or so I go "Oh yeah, Freenet exists...I should check it out again." But every time, I can't answer the question: Is there anything actually HERE?

Freenet: Is there actually anything worthwhile on it?

eh (1)

kadnan (914752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465224)

Darknets are not new for me. Every porn site I visited had a dark background thus helped me to "penetrate" into it further.

Darkweb (1)

LlamaZorz (1717784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465244)

I thought Darknets were private and encrypted vpn based file sharing systems. They work based on invites and trust.

I think the author meant Darkweb

Yes, believe it or not Google cannot do everything (1)

BC_Man (1236426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465580)

Google has built quite an empire on making people believe that they are the defacto standard for search. They should be commended for the quality of their applications but sadly the marketing has led people astray. I actually took a trip to my local University to do some research. A day login gave me access to thousands of Scientific papers that I would otherwise have to pay hundreds of pounds for. Doing real research takes footwork and hardwork. The web can do a lot but you have to know where to look. See http://narconews.com/Issue64/article4073.html [narconews.com] , http://deepwebresearch.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] , http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,13927,1195901,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

Hiding is not always sinister or suspicious (0)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#31465634)

"The deep web isn't half as strange or sinister as it sounds. In computer-science speak, it refers to those portions of the web that, for whatever reason, have been invisible to conventional search engines such as Google."

In reality, we might be better off if more of the Web were "dark" in this sense. Google (and the other major search sites) are fairly good at indexing text in English (and other human languages). But there's a lot of data online in those "sprawling databases" that are not encoded in human language, and are much better indexed by separate software that is designed to do that job right. One of the very real problems with google is that it so often returns sites that seem to contain strings of "words", but in fact aren't human language. I'm sure most people here are quite familiar with the results of "matches" on such data.

This isn't any sort of new observation. There are by now several thousand projects around the Net that deal with distributed databases of information encoded in various ways that are relevant and important to the people who use that data. One very well-known example is the GIS data that's used by the mapping software in your GPS gadget. This is very useful information, but for google to index it and return it when you google for "Brittney Spears" is not really a good idea. Similarly, there are large online databases of such stuff as astronomy and DNA data, and the person looking for the info on Madonna or Shakespeare is not happy with getting strings of parsed DNA.

I've been involved in building a search facility for several kinds of technical data, whose nature is uninteresting to nearly everyone here, but would server as one of many such examples. There are a thousand or so sites that use these formats. The data is "encoded" in plain-text form, mostly for ease of sending via any available method such as email. But most of the sites use robots.txt to tell the search bots to ignore the directories that contain this data, because the people using it are themselves annoyed by getting their own data back in google searches. The data contains shorts bursts of letters, so search bots treat it as text and index all the "words". The result is worthless to nearly anyone, including those who are familiar with and using this data encoding.

As an example, I found a file in my site that contains the string "red haired girl", did a google search, and it found a match on the file. People who click on that match, perhaps due to a redhead fetish, might be disappointed to find that it contains lines of text like "E3 ECE | FAB Ace | fec ecA | B2 e efg | age f2 a |fec ecA |BAB cAE |1 FAF FAF :|2 FAF". That's probably not what most people would expect for such a search. (Of course, if you follow irtrad-l, you'll probably recognize that notation and start humming along. ;-)

A much more rational approach would be to develop separate search sites for each such kind of specialized data. The google gang does sorta understand this, of course. Thus, Google Maps uses the GIS data, but Google Search doesn't return GIS data (very often ;-). They have software for searching GIS data, as do all the mapmakers, but they understand that there's little benefit in trying to merge GIS and human-language searches. Share some of the software, yes, since net navigation is a common task in all of them. Present the GIS addressing info in text form, too, since it's useful for humans to search that. But the text analysis and indexing schemes for the basic data have little in common, and need mostly separate software to do a good job of searching the data.

Anyway, it's no doubt true that there is a lot of "suspicious" information (semi-)hidden online. But it's also true that a lot of data is hidden from the major searchers simply because they don't do much that's useful with the data, and there's no reason to waste a server's CPU time servicing requests from googlebot or the other human-language search bots.

My server logs show that 90% of its requests are from search bots, despite my robots.txt file telling them to stay away from most of our data. This is an utter waste of processor time and network bandwidth. In a more rational world, there would be better tools than robots.txt and "nofollow", to tell the bots what sort of data is where, and to better tell them not to bother with the files that they'll just misunderstand.

(And in a rational world, people working on specialized distributed data would cooperate better than they do in our world. I've found that people working on highly-specialized search tools don't communicate with each other much, because they aren't interested in those other weird kinds of data. But they could probably learn a lot from each others' mistakes. Oh, well, maybe in another decade or two it'll come together better. ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...