case studyProject descriptionr

case studyProject descriptionrequirment: That is, I expect a a brief summary of the ideas involved, a response to those ideas (are they sound? Do they make sense? Can you support or deny them?),and an overall opinion of the piece.Author AnonymousTechnoscience ReviewPostphemonology WTAnarchic Principles, Ethics, and Anonymity: A Cultural Examination of the Deep Web ? Three Anonymous Case StudiesThe average end-user internet browsing experience goes something along the lines as follows: open computer, check email, check facebook, look at relevant mediasites, watch pornography, continue on your day. A more advanced user might perhaps add in the occasional FTP connection, spend some time in a UNIX shell, or even tryand scam a credit card company out of some money. This is all child?s play. Over the last several years the internet has been provided as a tool for political,individual, and social anonymity ? a portal into the depthsof encoded information, both legal and illegal, for the sake of good or for the purpose of destruction; aplace to discuss politics in an open forum and a place to buy a hit on your wife, a place to consume ideas and a place to sell narcotics, this hidden part of theinternet is known asthe Deep Web.It is impossible to deny the value and importance of the Internet. It has opened up new methods, paths, and venues for the travel and collection ofinformation and the spreading of ideas ? in short there is not a single element of modern society that is not to a certain degree ?under the influence?of the existenceof the internet. Yet the common experience is one in which people are still regulated by some version of a normative basis ofsocial and political regulation; laws andcivil conduct still do, to a certain degree determine the ?order? of the Internet ? think if you will of the recent explosion in lawyers moving towards intellectualproperty law, thanks to the net.However universally, this is not the case. More and more people are beginning to recognize that true anonymity exist standing in harsh opposition to the open networksmost people are involved with, regulated only by certified anonymity, crypto-terrorism, and wannabe hacker police. Referred to as the Tor network, or in some casessimply as the anonymity network, deep net browsing uses encrypted hash tags, worldwide connection nodes, and randomly generated dynamic individual identities toguarantee a fully autonomous experience of whatever one could imagine. This deep web is uncategorized, uncataloged, and hidden from popular search engines andindexing programs. To access the deep web you must either know someone who understands the deep web, have helped design and maintain it yourself, or find someone onthe open net willing to show you the way.This paper will focus on the cultural, social, and politicaloutcomes of true anonymity as expressed in technological mediation, exploring the depths of the hidden weband analyzing the principles of freedom that exist when actions are occulted behind a veil of data and encryption, found only in the deep net. This paper will furtherexamine three case studies that I have developed in the deep web with three anonymous users who have provided me with information regarding themselves, their ideals,their goals, and their methods. Take into account that the information provided must be taken with a grain of salt ? I have only been given weblinks, hash keys,ciphers, photographs, user reviews, and user names and thus must take the information I?ve been given as the only information available to me ? a consequence ofanonymity.I will examine these three case studies in an attempt to understand social, ethical, and political reasons behind what it is that my studies showed, and ? through atwice mediated hermeneutic evaluation of ?users? ? attempt to determine why the deep net has become the market for terror, death, and human trafficking. Thefundamental question I have been led to ask is not why individuals have used a completely anonymous system for illegal activity but rather, how it could be that theseactions could be prevented without authoritative legislation. Lastly, I will use the date I received in an attempt to analyze whether the three aforementioned aspectsof the web are necessarily bad or rather just happen to stand against the normative barrier of the non/pre-technological life world. We have been provided with theultimate practical tool for the birth of Anarchism and have turned it into, and seen it turned into the realm of the nefarious and treacherous, while also becoming thehome for crypto-anarchism, cypherpunk ideals, counter-economics, darknet file sharing, hacktivism, and infoanarchism. The point must be made clear: the political hasignored the technological for too many years and while the political world is still stuck in the dark ages, the technological is exploding towards the future; thetechnological has become morepolitical then the political itself and, in the hands of the completely anonymous this could be a bit worrisome.II -The History of the WebWhether it actually began with a system wide crash after a student typed the letter G or not is irrelevant, as on October 29th, 1969 two individuals atStanford and UCLA ?connected? their computers together for the first time over a large spatial distance and sent a message to one another: that message was ?login? ?and yes that G caused the first worldwide crash of the internet.Seven years prior, JCR Licklider of MIT had begun his discussion of what he called the, ?Galactic Network? ? a concept in which he envisioned globallyinterconnected sets of computers through which anyone and everyone could access data and programs from any location. Along with these visions came the first sets ofbooks on packet switching technology which would attempt to displace circuit switching technologies which, at the time, allowed computers on a given local network tocommunicate with one another.Early technologies used packet switching to transmit data, a method of transferring data regardless of type and size to another host in bundles of data that are sentand received from peer to host and visa versa. ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network was the host and the world?s first operational network ofdelocalized packet receiving computers (and was of course, funded by the US Department of Defense). ARPANET is still understood as a collection of the first hoststhat would one day become the unified infrastructure of the internet.The ARPANET exploded in size and within a few months there were hosts set up as far east as Utah encorperating visualization projects and 3d modeling technologies formathematical formulas. By the end of ?69 ARPANET had fully created and began use of the Network Control Protocol, or NCP for communications (which would today bereplaced with TCP/IP) as the first understood protocol for transmission and reception of data over the web.By 1972 worldwide displays of the power of the ARPANET had began to spring up as the new hot application of electronic mail messaging was introduced. Keep in mindthat e-mail?s relevance to the development of the net is not simply in the fact that it has become, worldwide, the number one avenue for the exchange of informationbut was also the first truly established means of traffic via peer-to-peer or, people-to-people technologies on a delocalized technological sense.Thus the ARPANET became the backbone for what developed as the Internet; an idea that wanted multiple independent networks of arbitrary importance or design to be ableto communicate with one another through packet switching technologies. This concept of open-architecturetechnologies is still the fundamental concept of the net, itsnot about who are what your computer looks like or what language it wants to speak, it can still connect to a host and be provided with information. In this approach,the choice of any individual network technology was not dictated by a particular network architecture but rather could be selected freely by a provider and made tointerwork with the other networks through a meta-level ?Internetworking Architecture?.In an open-architecture network, the individual networks may be separately designed and developed and each may have its own unique interface which it may offer tousers and/or other providers. including other Internet providers. Each network can be designed in accordance with the specific environment and user requirements ofthat network. There are generally no constraints on the types of network that can be included or on their geographic scope, although certain pragmatic considerationswill dictate what makes sense to offer.Because ARPANET required Interface Message Processors, or IMP communications protocols, data had to be received in a particular way in order for communications to takeplace at all. Thus, thinkers developed the four golden rules that became the regulative foundation for Internet technologies that have carried over (to some degree)up until modern times in order to try and prevent privatization and/or monopolization of the internet:?Each distinct network would have to stand on its own and no internal changes could be required to any such network to connect it to the Internet.? Communications would be on a best effort basis. If a packet didn?t make it to the final destination, it would shortly be retransmitted from the source.? Black boxes would be used to connect the networks; these would later be called gateways and routers. There would be no information retained by the gateways aboutthe individual flows of packets passing through them, thereby keeping them simple and avoiding complicated adaptation and recovery from various failure modes.? There would be no global control at the operations level.These principles in theory led to the development of the protocols that we now use, TCP (Transmission Control Protocol)/IP(Internet Protocol) ? IP, which allowed onlyfor addressing and forwarding of individual packets, and TCP which dealt with the actual methods by which the packets traveled (think flow rate, data space allocation,etc). TCP/IP allowed to net to function without restriction There was also developed at the time a separate protocol, User Diagram Protocol or UDP which will laterbecome an essential tool in anonymous web browsing.By the early 80?s, any company or organization requiring data communications was hooked up to one of the networks for global data transfers. AT&T began itsfree-wheeling distribution of UNIX (arguably the first global, large scale anarchist-technology project) which spawned UNIX? own USENET and BITNET the first nonpurpose-built networks that relied on peer to peer maintenance and control for the their own sustenance and development; every user became a tester, and every computerbecame a hub. Theses systems became the backbones for the RFC (Request for Comments) program in which the massive expansion and development of the Internet could onlybe made possibly through the use of peer communication and reciprocal development and testing. This led to the development of the modern FTP and the standardizing ofmost internet protocols and the rapid expansion of the internet continued to be fueled by the constant reminders and understandings that the Internet was the keylocation to share ideas, promote the dispersion of information, and spread ideas on a globalized scale.Since the 1980?s countless large scale innovations have taken place throughout and by means of the Internet includingglobalized transmission of information,freedom to access countless texts, files, and programs that would be otherwise held back due to spatial restriction, online marketplacing, etc. Data is now being sentand received faster than it ever has been before. Information is now being transmitted across oceans, land masses, and from political organization to individualfaster than ever before, and this of course is where the problem arises.Unfettered access to information is not something our government has ever been particularly fond of ? things are kept under wrap for reasons that we are notmeant to know or even contemplate. The authorities had always hoped that the average end user would be unable to access certain levels of information, which wererestricted to higher-end corporations and associates. However, as the Internet developed into a system, which was clearly capable of supporting its own infrastructureand technologically mediated sociopolitical ideas, the power and development of the net moved from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. Networks like USENETand BITNET became tools for the free sharing of information not directly related to the development of the backbone infrastructure; people began using USENETnewsgroups to discuss politics, religion, activism, gun control, and of course the infamous boom of globally marketed child pornography ? the regulators could not sitidly by.1993 marked the beginning of the .gov and .org extensions, arguably, the beginning of the end of freedom on the internet. Certainly prior to 1993 thegovernment had its teeth deeply sunken into the radical ideologies that were making their ways into Johnny?s back door in rural upstate New York (He?d never even heardof the word anarchism before) but the distribution of untaxable, unethical material forced legislation on the net that provided a beautiful method for the completecontrol over the internet: packet sniffing, IP dumping, and the complete loss of anonymity. If you use the internet, someone can find out who you were, where youlive, what you?ve used the internet for, and probably every other piece of private information you thought you had stored so securely on the last website you used toorder a textbook.III ? The Development of the Deep WebDespite its original success as an open-architecture based platform for the free distribution of information and development of globalized software andprograms, it became clear that certain individuals would use the Internet as another means of crime and theft. Howeveroriginally, it was rare that these crimes wereunfounded. Early hackers joined the ranks by putting their names up on corporate home pages and would only commit acts of maliciousness if they felt their rights werebeing impinged upon. Individuals who grew up helping to develop the backbone of what is now the most world-wide used element of technology were suddenly being toldthat their packets were being traced, their IP addresses were used to locate their physical addresses, and their rights were being compromised; 18 year old kidswriting their names on microsoft?s homepage that they helped design were spending ten years in jail. The hacktivists did they only thing they knew how to do ? theyattacked back, putting pressure on the government officials who were implementing the restrictive policies on global network data. The intent was never to takeadvantage of, or to hurt, but was rather to simply say in the only way they knew how, ?please leave us alone, we built the thing you?re taking away from us. We buildfreedom of exchange of information and you built another means of tyranny.?By the early 2000?s, individuals high-end users could not deal with the legislation anymore and in September of 2002, the Tor network was invented and beganits initial implementation. Tor is a program and project that works with the Vidalia browsers to anonymize Internet browsing. The onion routing network makes it sothat in order to access the net one must go through hundreds of worldwide relays and portals, all encrypted from the public net, slowly peeling away layers until theyreach the net (hence the onion imagery). By relaying through hundreds of encrypted networks before making access to a single unencrypted host, Tor has made it almostimpossible for actions to be logged and followed on the internet. Anonymity is also helped through the actions of the end user who can control their Tor networkactivity, frequently refresh their identity and using UDP protocols rather than the standard TCP/IP.IV ? Three Case StudiesAfter discovering the deep net tor portal, I found a user run, operated, and maintained forum where activists, murderers, drug dealers, politicians, bored children,angry dads, and a general plethora of pissed off individuals gathered to discuss their views on things generally not discussed in either the public or the open net.These topics included means of revolution that surprisingly aren?t found in anything Marx wrote, reviews of drugs that people purchase through the deep net economy,politicians home addresses, phone numbers and pictures of their families, and ratings and reviews on the sale and purchase of human lives. There are three anonymousindividuals with whom I had conversations on these boards that I would like to discuss. Keep in mind that all of the identities, names, and locations have not beenomitted by me but rather, had never existed. All of this was done within the realm of the Deep net and thus everything was completely anonymous. However, anydisbelief that I had when confronted with certain things was immediately squashed when I would receive a new website link and a randomly generated hash tag encryptionkey that allowed me to log into a site and bid for a human life.A. Case A refers to a man who called himself the general and specialized in the distribution of and purchasing of large scale weapon caches and drugs. Hiscompany worked out of Northern Europe but guaranteed shipping worldwide. According to the ratings and reviews (the forum upon which people and drugs are reviewed isfairly unsecure and known as the silk road forums ? the place to check reviews for anything and everything), he was operating at about 95% success, had very reasonableprices, and was ?A pleasure to work with.? His general view on what he was doing was that he was ?helping people liberate themselves in a world where liberationthrough another was impossible?. He expressed that Tor browsing had given him the ability to help people who were trapped in positions where they were unable to usethe help (governmental aid) that was being given to them (speaking of gun sales). His beliefs on drug sales were similar, he responded to my question of,?Understanding your views on gun sales, why sell drugs as well?? by saying that, ?The illegalization of drugs worldwide has driven globalized social policy into anumbers game that, for some reason, the governments want to stay out of. Numbers show that illegalization has never taken away from sales numbers, curious kids, butrather show sales driven up from the allure of the forbidden plant so until someone shows me the direct correlate between smoking pot and killing innocent babies, I?llkeep doing what I?m doing. I mean, its an easy harmless way to cover overhead costs, and well, we all like to get high winky face?B. Case B is a conglomerate of individuals who have been lumped into a single study as I was never certain as to whom I was speaking. They were all part of agroup of Chinese Anarchists whose aim and purpose was to freely release the withholding of information via the Chinese government and to allow for free reign browsingof the world wide web. They hoped that by exploring various avenues of freedom of information they could help to disavow hierarchical methods of institution, that is,they believed that the person with the information, not the person with the capital (which interestingly enough becomes secondary to information) becomes the personwith the power and, should the complete extinction over the control of information be established, there would, over a long period of time, give way to the extinctionof authoritative distinctions or as they said, ?the asymmetry for knowledge is a huge aspect to capitalist domination and must end before anything further take place.?Unlike people throughout the rest of the world, the Chinese are unable to access most online forums available to the web due to the country?s restrictive firewalls soTor Networking is the only way in which they are able to communicate openly. While agreeing that the Tor network for them has been equated to a project and movementin practical anarchism, the group were quite unsurprised by the atrocities found upon the web, ?of course people so deep within an already fucked up social conditionare going to develop new methods of exploitation, and Tor provided them with that ? its not an either or, it?s a both and with the good, you get the bad. We hope thatcertain political shift might be able to dissuade the bad in favor of the good, specifically free exchange of information, but in the mean time no one on Tor should beable to abuse authority, regulate information, or try and prevent actions that are already occurring, that?s something we all stand firmly behind.?crypto-anarchismCase B can be considered crypto-anarchists, a new branch of anarchism that has become manifest only in the radically technological age. Crypto-anarchists employcryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks, thereby protecting privacy and politicalfreedom.Using such software, the association between the identity of a certain user or organization and the pseudonym they use is difficult to find, unless the user revealsthe association. It is difficult to say which country?s laws will be ignored, as even the location of a certain participant is unknown. In a sense, the encryptedanonymous networks (the ?cipherspace?) can be regarded as an independent lawless territory or as an autonomous zone. However, participants may in theory voluntarilycreate new laws using smart contracts or, if the user is pseudonymous, depend on online reputation.C. Case C, arguably the most challenging case to work with was from an anonymous user also operating out of Northern Europe and Eastern Europe in the exchange andtrafficking of human beings. I?m certain that he thought my opening post on a the anon-forums would make for a great marketing ploy but, after he learned that I wasan American working on studying the ethics of the deep net, his communications with me became very scarce. He responded to my slew of questions with a 24 bit hashkey, a decryption key, a randomly generated login name and password. After using the key to decrypt the hash tag, I wound up on an incredibly well designed auctionhouse website staring at pictures, descriptions, sizes, measurements, places of origin, ages, and all the personal background information on people for auction. Theseindividuals were bid on over 12 hour periods of time (the site only remained intact and in a single place for 12 hour periods at which point it would relocate and kickall its non-purchasing users from the site) and sold from five thousand and a quarter of a million dollars. Most of the people for auction were in their late teensfrom impoverished parts of Europe and were going to be used for sex trafficking in brothels in larger cities around Europe. I did however notice that blood types werefrequently given as well as medical history, which might be indicative of the sale of organs and body parts, this is of course speculative. I did not have time, orthe resources, or the ability to actively speak to any members of the human trafficking community but rather spent my time trying to wrap my head around the fact thatI was staring at a website at which individuals could buy human beings.V ? Anarchism, Tor, and FreedomAnarchism:?The name given to a principle or theory of lifeand conduct under which society is conceivedwithout government?harmony in such a societybeing obtained, not by submission to law, or byobedience to any authority, but by free agreementsconcluded between the various groups, territorialand professional, freely constituted for the sake ofproduction and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.?Peter Kropotkin (Encyclopedia Britannica)It is clear that the deep net, along with similar projects including LINUX, UNIX, GNU, etc. can be considered an anarchist project. Similarly to the ideas ofLinus Torvold (considered the original creator of Linux), Tor was developed as an open sourced development system in which individuals could, to their fullest extent,explore the full depths of the internet and its architectures. All individuals involved in the project become members of the testing community, to use is to debug andto create. Problems that individuals confronted that they couldn?t solve themselves were posted up on USENET forums for the community to deal with as a whole. Butthe major problem here is not in the fact that Tor is being capitalized or exploited but rather that it is allowing for acts to take place upon its network that aresimply, no matter how one might put it, beyond any ethical dimension of normative anarchist ideas. How could it be that such an implementation of an anarchist ideabecomes an avenue for the trafficking of human bodies? Anonymity is the last step in free speech, but free speech does not mean immunity, rather, it must ? in orderfor the deep net to continue to flourish, scream for radical responsibility.The Inuit, one of the few large groups of people that are still to this day not ruled by a form of external hierarchy but rather by small syndicates ofindividuals with common goals have figured out a way to deal with the problem of individuals who are working against the common good of the people: a song. It isagainst the Inuit principle to hurt another in your tribe directly. All food is shared upon being caught, all responsibilities are shared within the group and takenvery seriously, anything that an individual should want or chose to do, the tribe can and will provide. Like any other group of socially responsible people notdependent upon external structures of power, the Inuit were confronted with individuals who did not hunt, they did not mend, they did not help the tribe in any way butexpected, to the same extent as the workers of the tribe to be taken care of. The Inuit developed a song that became known as the death song about people who refusedto work. People would sing the song around the non-workers who would be passively shunned from gatherings, meals, and tribal meetings until they were forced to tryand find another tribe with whom they could live. However, the song would follow them, the mark of the non-laborer would stay attached to their very being, they couldnot escape their own demise unless they radically changed the way they interacted with the tribe; radical responsibility in a radically free society.Now what does this have to do with the deep net and the practical anarchism we find attached to anideology in praxis? We must first understand the stancetaken by formal principles of anarchism that reject all authoritative restrictions on freedoms. Certainly the anarchist stance on deep web practices of the sale ofweapons and drugs, or the dissemination of child/animal/whatever pornography cannot be a strict against all policy; there is no way that anarchism can deny people theright to both look at, and exchange ?illegal? types of objects and information. However, anarchism can certainly do two things: 1. Reject the commodity exchangevalues that directly attach a capital value to an object or ideal and reject the direct applications of capital and exploitation that find their ways into all means ofmodern exchange and 2. Establish a way in which the community of users can force people into responsibilities for their own actions, thus marginalizing certainindividuals to the point of social dismissal; the community would no longer support or give the necessary preconditions for the existence of said actions.Let us for example imagine the full group of individuals on the Tor network at any given time as sample group X. Within this group we have three sub sectionsA, B, and C (let each of them reflect each case study respectively ? that is A sells guns and drugs, B fights for symmetry in information exchange and C sells people)who perform certain actions and have various beliefs.Now let us apply the methods previously discussed to this theoretical area of anonymous browsing. However, we can?t be na?ve enough to believe that all means ofcommodity exchange be brought to a halt and I don?t have the time or interest right now to argue against capitalism as such but I can say that if we apply the generalunderstanding that capital means bad we can sidestep some major issues that I?d really prefer to ignore right now. I?m not looking for the more fundamental problemsand design flaws of modern capital but rather, why the way in which it has manifest on the deep net, which I still consider a forum for radical anarchist ideology, isnot being dealt with in a reasonable fashion. Therefore we must ignore the capital attached to the sale and exchange of goods on the deep net and rather focus on thesecond step, the way in which the deep net community can non-authoritarianly deal with the problems of human trafficking and similar practices.For the sake of the argument, groups A and B both agree that the actions being taken by group C are, without any reasonable doubt, unethical in the treatment of humanlife ? I would be hard pressed to find a proper philosophical argument for the support of trafficking of human beings. Group C?s actions become publicly known andboth group A and B are disgusted but, according to basic principles of deep net browsing and the fundamental anarchist principles upon which it rests, cannot simply goforth and attack group C (a because their actions would therefore be authoritarian and b. because anonymity makes any attempt at pointing blame quite difficult).Therefore in order for groups A and B to non-authoritatively prevent the action of human trafficking in a principally anarchist medium we must appeal to the Inuitmethod of dissonance and prevention ? we must make the means of group C?s actions unattainable.In order for Group C to continue to exist, the entire Tor network must continue to exist in order to keep the infrastructure running. Because each user/node/serverexists as a foundation or backbone to the entirety of the network, any lost piece of the structure would result in losses of anonymity and therefore, a loss of thenetwork. Tor must demand the radical responsibility that the Inuit do ? users must establish themselves as the true clients; everything must be brought to attention.The naivety by which individuals treat the political while excluding the technological is simply stunning. We?ve seen over the last several years regimes beingoverthrown with the help of Facebook, videos of tyrants and thieves being executed publicly worldwide (all of the planning that took place prior to 9/11 took place onthe tor network), and the ?simple? transmission and dissemination of information being relayed at a speed that allows politics to exist in a global environment.Technology is the new realm of the political and has to be treated with respect enough to understand this very fact. Furthermore, understanding the Tor network as aTemporary Autonomous Zone (as preached by the crypto and infoanarchists) is a way into understanding how the (a)political might manifest and how individuals withoutauthority might have a method of dealing with truly unethical behavior.Tor has been criticized as the portal for the scum of the earth to function and operate out of the bounds of the law and my question is no longer, why are they doingthis, but rather, why is the rest of the network letting them. Letting to be understood in the most passive sense and network to be understood in the most communalsense; the Tor family simply just has to stop, and say no.Order for a custom written PAPER now and one of our online writers will write your assignment from scratch within your deadline! Category: Essay Writing

Welcome to Vision Essays! For over 10 years we have been helping students like you write, research, and generate ideas for their research papers, essays, term papers, dissertations, editing, resumes, and any other type of work your learning institution may assign you.

We can write any paper and have flexible payment plans with a minimum deadline of 6 Hrs.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page: