Despite Its Nefarious Reputation, New Report Finds Majority of Activity On Dark Web is Totally Legal and Mundane (digitaljournal.com) 83
According to a study published by dark web data intelligence provider Terbium Labs, the bulk of activity appearing on the dark web is much like the content and commerce found on the clear web. In fact, researchers found that nearly 55 percent of dark web content is legal. From a report:"What we've found is that the dark web isn't quite as dark as you may have thought," said Emily Wilson, Director of Analysis at Terbium Labs. "The vast majority of dark web research to date has focused on illegal activity while overlooking the existence of legal content. We wanted to take a complete view of the dark web to determine its true nature and to offer readers of this report a holistic view of dark web activity -- both good and bad." Key findings from the report are (condensed): Anonymity does not mean criminality. Pornography is prominent, but not all of it is illegal. Drugs are a popular topic, with 45 percent of illegal content being about drugs.
not suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Logic fail
"Unable to see does not imply it is dangerous" is not equivalent to "Unable to see it implies it is not dangerous". It means that no conclusion about the danger of something can be drawn solely from the inability to see it. It does not mean that something you might not see cannot be dangerous, and the only way that being unable to see it would impact this is that it may inhibit one's ability to evaluate the dangers objectively.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It means that no conclusion about the danger of something can be drawn solely from the inability to see it.
One might even call them unknown unknowns [wikipedia.org].
"Illegal content about drugs" (Score:1)
I understand "illegal content" in the context of pornography; we have CP laws. But what about "illegal content about drugs"?
A number of drugs are illegal, but is information about them also illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
I understand "illegal content" in the context of pornography; we have CP laws. But what about "illegal content about drugs"?
A number of drugs are illegal, but is information about them also illegal?
Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.
My parents were sure this was going to be the downfall of civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Meaning they were speaking from experience? :)
Re: (Score:3)
My parents were sure this was going to be the downfall of civilization.
And they were right. Not about the reasons, but the outcome.
Re: (Score:1)
If people knew how to grow their own weed and poppies, the CIA's drug empire would collapse.
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK, information about drugs isn't illegal. Erowid is on the open web since 1995 and contains pretty much everything you may want to know about drugs, including how to make them.
Drug marketplaces, a dark web favorite, are illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
A number of drugs are illegal, but is information about them also illegal?
Marketplaces where one can buy drugs are illegal. Info about drugs is probably a big chunk of that legal content.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand "illegal content" in the context of pornography; we have CP laws.
No, you don't understand it. Pornography may be legal in your country, in many places it is not. In many places content you do not consider 'Porn', is considered pornographic. Most of what is on the "dark net" IS illegal.... somewhere.
A number of drugs are illegal, but is information about them also illegal?
Depending on the country, yes. Depending on the information, yes. Depending on how the information is presented, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand "illegal content" in the context of pornography; we have CP laws. But what about "illegal content about drugs"? A number of drugs are illegal, but is information about them also illegal?
Presumably the illegal drugs were actually being traded.
If I say "30% of the non-dark internet's content is shopping", I don't just mean there's a lot of online catalogues.
not quite accurate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So does that mean you can tell us how a "dark web index type thing" differs from a "web page"?
The difference is that people can't access it without a password, and it doesn't show up in public indexes like Google. Much of the dark web doesn't even use DNS, just numerical IP addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubts (Score:3)
the ninja paradox (Score:3)
It's kind of like the old saying, "No living person has ever seen a ninja." No shit. If you did, you're dead. Or if you're alive, then what you saw wasn't a real ninja.
Majority meaning "barely more than half" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So what is the "dark net" ? Sites that aren't on Google, Yahoo, or Bing? Sounds like corporate favoritism to me. Content is not even relevant to that, it is merely circumstantial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You misread it, but it isn't written well (no surprise). It didn't say that 45% of the activity on the darknet is illegal, but is ABOUT illegal things (drugs in particular).
Discussing marijuana isn't the same as buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Warm and Fluffy Web (Score:5, Funny)
So, the dark web isn't that bad then; it just has a PR problem.
I would suggest changing it's name first. It's amazing how much more goodwiil people will grant you if you're called something like "the warm and fluffy" web instead of the dark web.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"the warm and fluffy" web instead of dark web... I call in first in making the Cannabis thread into a MyLittlePony thread!
Re: (Score:2)
"the warm and fluffy" web instead of dark web... I call in first in making the Cannabis thread into a MyLittlePony thread!
My Little Pony is a gateway to cannabis.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a typical "techie vs. marketing guy" problem.
The term was coined originally (in the 70s !) not for the purpose of appearing evil, but in the same sense that the deep web is used - to indicate that it is "in the shadows", that it is not publicly visible, without any of the bad vibes non-tech people associate with that.
Nefarious reputation eh? (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect most of the "dark web"'s reputation (including it's nefarious-sounding name) is mostly made up by the media, themselves controlled by the states, to prevent honest people who would legitimately like to escape state and big data surveillance. Most honest people fear being caught doing something that has a dodgy reputation, even if it's perfectly legal.
Maintaining the myth that the "dark web" is strictly for pedophiles, drug dealers, paid hitmen, carders and other illegal activities keeps good people from going under the radar, That suits a whole bunch of genuinely nefarious internet actors just fine. It also suits law enforcement agencies, as the myth tends to isolate and concentrate truly nasty activities on the dark web - making the myth self-perpetuating - and it kills any desire for legit concerns to invest in anonymous internet accessibility. Just look at what happened to DuckDuckGo's or Soylentnews' TOR nodes: they've disappeared, because they didn't get enough traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
>I suspect most of the "dark web"'s reputation (including it's nefarious-sounding name) is mostly made up by the media,
It's the exact same thing we heard about the BBS scene and the early Internet. Fucking Anthony Weiner got ISPs to drop Usenet altogether because /some/ groups were echoing "bad pictures" (the fucking IRONY!).
And that was /this/ century.
Fuck all these guys.
Tech reporting is a fucking nightmare. The new article at Slate about some sort of connection between a Trump DNS server and a Russi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right.
>bonehead
I'll take it.
The point stands, though. Out of 80 some-odd groups from a selection of over 60,000 groups, Cox et al., dropped Usenet totally because of Anthony Cuomo.
Because "boogity-boo!"
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
That was Anthony Cuomo, not Weiner, bonehead.
Actually that was Andrew Cuomo [wikipedia.org].
Don't let the irony hit you on your way out...
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that piracy would probably be the largest chunk but they didn't mention it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at what happened to DuckDuckGo's or Soylentnews' TOR nodes: they've disappeared, because they didn't get enough traffic.
That's odd. When I duckduckgo for 'duckduckgo onion', I still get the "DuckDuckGo is available on Tor" message with a link to 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion
55% is a "good" result? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with throwing out a number like that is that we have no context to understand it. After all, the vast majority of illegal torrents, ROMs, warez, drug talk, etc. are run over the plain old web, rather than the dark web, so who's to say whether 55% is high or low? For all I know, 90% of content on the plain old web is illegal content, which would make the dark web look great in comparison. Or those numbers could be flipped, in which case the dark web looks like a seedy place. But without that cont
And for the next study. (Score:5, Funny)
Of the hundred people in attendance in this rooms the majority is not a homicidal cannibal stalker, we found 51% of those in attendance have no plans to murder and eat someone once they leave the building.
Re: (Score:1)
Glad to hear your visit to Washington DC's national institutions went well.
Dark Web? (Score:3)
What even is "the dark web"? Is it just websites people don't know about because they aren't Facebook or Google?
Re:Dark Web? (Score:5, Informative)
There's another coined phrase of 'deep web', which are non-indexed websites that you may still be able to access if you are told of their addresses. These can still be reached with a standard browser and configuration. I might make it analogous to Youtube videos that are posted by their owners but marked 'Unlisted'.
Hidden in plain sight (Score:3)
This is why I hide my illegal content using steganography in otherwise legal content. It's secure because no one is willing to sit through enough furry porn to find it.
7%? (Score:1)
So 93% is illegal? The 7% is probably accidental then, or foreplay.
Totally Legal and Mundane Pornography (Score:2)
Reminded me of this incident. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Who would risk the internet? (Score:4, Informative)
Been on the dark web is as now as safe as using your own ip and isp.
Anything left is a honey pot, bait, a trap or has been turned long ago and is now a gov run front to collect with.
Every file is has a checksum. Every checksum is tracked on download and upload. New files get a checksum. Facial recognition and any camera details left in a file are extracted and sorted. Every file linked back to a real ip.
The interesting groups are now invite only and in back the real world. Its back to 1900-1980's with clusters of crime interlinked by trusted real people.
Spending time exposed to some vast digital trap is a risk that is well understood.
Think of what the internet once was, chatrooms without SJW and approved social media. Users are looking to rediscover the freedom and fun of the net around the 1980's - 1990's.