On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 01:43:41PM -0800, C. Comet wrote: > > > > One way blogs - OWBs: > > Important points: > > - OWBs are, due to present tech, not anonymous. > > - They simply provide the possibility that something you write or some > > document (say an Affidavit) that you upload, cannot be easily attacked by a > > non-state actor, primarily by virtue of being replicated into a few > > 'foreign' statutory jurisdictions, and due to the contract, and default > > tech policies in place in the infrastructure of OWBs. > > > I have not encountered the concept of "one way blogs - OWB", so cannot > comment on why, "due to present tech", they are not anonymous. > > I would expect them to be as anonymous as Bitcoin,
Yes, which is, to state actors (your unfriendly empire goverment in Washington), not anonymous at all... for almost all uses by almost all people who use it. > and as hard for a > government to remove as anything that would compromise the integrity of its > blockchain. > https://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/technology/security/bitcoin-porn/index.html > > People have published wedding photos and other blog entries into the > blockchain. > > -------- > Comet "One way blog" is just a concept, arising from the search for a solution to the problem of court injunctions against the publishing of certain classes of information, after the fact of such information having already been published - so, routing around the problem of court injunctions. Most such information is closely tied to actual people, and anything but anonymous. Even the publishing of such information is not anonymous, before the existence of an injunction against that publishing. Most folks who publish such "this person is a bitch" information, before any injunction is against their publishing of that information, are often times the only person with relevant motivation to publish such information publicly - so, once an inunction orders them to remove all instances of that information from their blog, website etc, then there's a very good chance that ready access to that information is no longer. And further, that even locating that information (say, by someone who "read it once a few years ago, and really wants it right now", is difficult to "for the average person, impossible". This concept could also be considered "wikileaks for information that governments don't care about, only small time individuals" - ha, so it could be called "minileaks" :) Evil hides (and often continues) in darkness. "Let's bring a little light to the small shitty stuff, when individuals are motivated to so expose." At a community level, exposing shitty stuff, and having the exposure persist over time, may have useful effects.
