Talk:Darknet/Archive 1

Archive 1

== jkmSerio us Copy Issues== This "article" is a total mess. It is rambling, unstructured and explains little. 100% Typical Wikiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.226.85 (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, so I re-wrote the introductory paragraph. I'm new to Wikipedia, so if I've done anything incorrectly please let me know. ps. I'm contributing to this article as part of the wikiproject detailed in the banner above. AgentEm84 (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally find Wikipedia articles very clear and useful; this one has grammatical errors and is unclear, making it difficult for me even to give it a line edit, as I'm not sure what the intended meaning is and (still, after reading) don't really understand the context. I hope someone can fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.64.18 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The title of this article needs to be changed: it's not just file sharing

Well, this article really needs to be moved/renamed. The Darknet isn't just used for file-sharing (in the appropriate use of the term). As example one reference used of this article explains the Darknet as follows:

we’ve learned that the Surface Web is anything that a search engine can access and the Deep Web is anything that a search engine can’t access. The Dark Web then is classified as a small portion of the Deep Web that has been intentionally hidden and is inaccessible through standard web browsers.

— http://www.brightplanet.com/2014/03/clearing-confusion-deep-web-vs-dark-web/

And this is a good definition - many other articles can be found that define the Darknet in the same/similar way (actually the article itself is explaining it good enough as well).

So I'd suggest to either remove the (file sharing) in the title, like it's the case for all other languages, or discuss a new categorization in this section. I'd suggest something along the lines of "(overlay network)".

--Fixuture (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I moved it now. There's still a small problem with it: in other languages still Darknet (file sharing) is linked even though I updated the entry in http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1166273#sitelinks-wikipedia (it's displayed correctly there). --Fixuture (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

2 different concepts refer to the same thing: this article needs to distinct between and explain the two

A lot of confusion is caused by people using the term darknet to refer to two different things (actually 3 if one includes the faulty equation with the darknet(type 1. below)-subset "dark web"):

1. Decentralized / distributed networks that incorporate privacy, security (encryption), and user anonymity features. Tor's network is the best known example of this. And I'd have the article focus on that. It's also what is usually meant by "darknets" (there are countless articles on SilkRoad & Co).
2. F2F networks in which connections are only established between trusted peers. Such are often used for filesharing; but also for other means: RetroShare's primary purpose are F2F-networks for chatting/file-sharing/VoIP/.. with a network of trusted friends.

(The keypoint of each of these concepts are marked in bold)
In hindsight I even find this quote confusing and probably partially false:

Users often refer to darknets for file sharing as friend-to-friend (F2F) networks, because direct connections are only established between trusted friends. But the term “Darknet” can also be used to describe any private file sharing network. For the sake of clarity, this article will differentiate between these terms. The term “darknet” will refer to a decentralized distributed network (lacking a central index) that incorporates privacy, security (encryption), and user anonymity features, with the primary purpose of sharing information with trusted members. When capitalized, “Darknet” will refer to those networks collectively.

— Jessica Wood

Here's why:

• "decentralized distributed network (lacking a central index) that incorporates privacy, security (encryption), and user anonymity features, with the primary purpose of sharing information with trusted members" -> if you take Tor for example (which, again, is what at least 90% of news-articles & documentaries using the term are referring to) it's not about "trusted members" but about providing a high grade of anonymity. There are no trusted members in it.
• Afaik it's decentralized or distributed
• It's not just about file-sharing

To make things more confusing F2F networks (which I described in 2.) can also incorporate anonymity features even though they are not necessary for it to be called a "darknet".

I think to resolve this we need to involve more people who are knowledgeable on the topic (including those from RetroShare and Tor (anonymity network).
Please discuss. --Fixuture (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. A lot of the terminology I've worked on uses ambiguous terminology, best displayed on some Venn diagram rather than discrete articles, but I'm doing my best :) Deku-shrub (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixuture and Deku-shrub, please see: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Darknet_(networking)&diff=666005966&oldid=665940674 Nodove (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Subset of Deep Web

According to the definition on this page and the examples (Retroshare, Gnutella etc.) also networks not based on web-technologies are considered to be part of the Darknet (which I consider to be the proper definition). However this contradicts the claim that the collection of all darknets are a subsection of the Deep Web (and the Claim that it is the same as the "Dark Web"). Or am I missing something? BenediktWildenhain (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I also think that this is the proper definition. I think the article needs to differentiate between Darknet and Darkweb - all darkwebs form a subset of the deep web. I haven't heard of any significant instances of darknets which aren't also darkwebs yet (like Tor's one for example). So I guess that's where the equalization of those two terms comes from.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So Deku-shrub created a separate article for the Dark Web - I suggested merging it into this article. I think the Darknet article should have a subsection "Dark web" (which would also incldue all the content of the current Dark web article) and a subsection "Other uses" or alike. --Fixuture (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. But then the cross over with the term Deep Web is even more confusing! Deku-shrub (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

V Mero qe (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

ARPANET inaccuracy

The statement that ARPANET evolved into the Internet is inaccurate and is not supported by the reference. Technologies developed by the ARPANET project are used in the Internet but the whole point of the Internet it that it is the network between networks. ARPANET was just one network that became connected to other networks by the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.189.100 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Move to Darknet?

I think this is the strongest use of Darknet and it should replace the disambiguation page. Thoughts? Deku-shrub (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It should have sth like:

{{Redirect-distinguish2|Network telescope|used to monitor network traffic on unallocated IP space|Darknet (series)|a 2013 Canadian horror television series}}

on top of the page.

The Darknet referred to as a "fictional plot device in Daniel Suarez's Daemon novels" is actually a fictional darknet as in the article. I think there should be a "in fiction" section in the article that features it. [Also just btw. the 2nd Daemon novel is probably my favourite book and its German title also happens to be Darknet (even though that's no less English than the original title whatever)...]--Fixuture (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Typically if there are two additional topics to distinguish between (in addition to the page they would be distinguished from) which use the same name, it's cause for a disambiguation page. So the question is whether the disambig should be at Darknet or this page should be at Darknet and the disambiguation at Darknet (disambiguation) (with a "for other uses" hatnote on this page). My preference is to leave Darknet as the disambiguation. There's the matter of the other media and subjects sometimes called "darknet" technically, but I think there's also something perhaps more important: "Darknet" is thrown out so frequently without technical precision in popular media, science fiction, and even scholarly work -- not because people are using it wrong but because they've combined "dark" and "net" to make commonsense meaning. There's something to be said for being precise, but I think a disambiguation page is best as the main page. I will say that I don't have extraordinarily strong feelings about it, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I'm inclined to agree with the other two making this proposal. I'd say this is the main referent of "Darknet". What else have we really got? We've got a minor fictional work, a character in a minor fictional work (without a page) and another thing resting happily at Network telescope. Really, this is the main whatsit to which "darknet" refers. Then, do it. I don't see any good argument against but feel free to revert ... but don't just revert ping me. I'm going ahead with this but I won't mind being reverted or if that's too hard I'll revert myself and we can look at more opinions than our four. Jimp 11:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jimp: Fine with me. Seems to be a consensus here and I don't have particularly strong objections. Thanks for following up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Three-to-one isn't consensus ... unless nobody else is interested and this has yet to be seen. Anyhow, what better way to look than to prod the issue (but we've got to pick the issues). I'm fine with a revert, as I say, but sometimes "BOLD" is the best way to test. Jimp 16:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What’s this? Courtneyxoxo2002x (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Kurd Hama bokani (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits

Hello,

As a part of my school requirement, I am going to make some edits to this article. I am planning to add more to the description and origins of the Darknet. Additioanlly, I am going to include current sponsor who provide funding for the Darknet. Please let me know if you have any concerns/recommendations. Thanks Anastasia192 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Anastasia192Anastasia192 (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, make sure you don't overlap with dark web as this article is mostly about the technology rather than the content Deku-shrub (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Usable draft

I recently found an old abandoned draft, User:Ndfernan/inlsgroupproject, which may be of use to this page. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken in definition

While most page talks about a technology that can run dark web and other services, the definition is about other thing: The first phrase

" darknet (or dark net) is a portion of routed, allocated IP space not running any services. Traffic arriving to such IP dark space is undesired since it has no active hosts.[1]"

This defitinion is not related to the darknet meaning in the whole article, it should be a new page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipeaferreira (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Update

I have added some more info and citations. I also did some reorganization to give the article clarity. In this regard, I would like to cite the functions of the Terminology and Origin sections. Their respective contents tend to overlap. I am, however, unsure whether they needed to be merged or merely modified to provide different subject matter. I hope future edits would help address this issue. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Need better cite for reported ARPANET usage

I just removed the "Citation needed|date=November 2018" template following the claim The term originally described computers on ARPANET that were hidden, programmed to receive messages but not respond to or acknowledge anything, thus remaining invisible, in the dark., adding a cite to Om Darknet via archive.org dated 2018-01. Then I discovered that the same claim existed in an earlier version of this article, using an earlier cite for the same article, e.g. in a 2015 version [1] referencing [2]. Both still seem unconvincing especially since the article seems to have been written 4 years after the wikipedia page had that content. We should have some RFC evidence for this claim. The text on the "coining" of the term was introduced at [3]. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Satellite based Darknets

There are no examples that I know of, but it certainly can be done using Datacasting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.168.153 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Another advantage of a satellite datacasting based darknet is that the receivers are completely untraceable assuming they are suitably air gapped. And that the receiver hardware is a standard satellite dish used for TV. Because of the receive only nature of the system it is much more secure than either Tor or I2P because there is no return channel that law enforcement can use to find out what you are reading. 86.130.89.95 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)