[tor-talk] Terminology: Deep v Dark Web

[Katya Titov]

Luther Blissett:
> Katya Titov:
>> Nicolas Vigier:
>>> 
>>> I don't know what is the exact definition of "open Internet", but
>>> I'm not sure we should oppose that to Tor hidden services. The
>>> Tor hidden services are accessed using the internet, and they
>>> also look very open to me: anybody can access them if they know
>>> the address, using free software, based on a protocol that is
>>> documented.
>> 
>> Good point. I've change "open Internet" to "public Internet". I
>> already had a note that the open Internet was "open to
>> filtering/censorship by governments and ISPs" and I think that sits
>> better with the term 'public Internet'.
> 
> Both expressions are somehow misleading. What do you mean "open"? If
> you mean "general public accessible", aka, "unrestricted internet",
> first you have to consider that in most countries there is a fee
> attached to internet access so it's not public in the same sense that
> streets are.

It does seem to be difficult to get a perfect description. Rick
suggested "commercial" which I don't really think sums it up. "Open" is
misleading to me because access is often filtered by governments or
ISPs. I see "public" as a good compromise, meaning access to the
"regular" Internet, something that the general public can get to.
Whether it is through a home DSL line or a city or Starbucks WiFi
doesn't matter too much (to me).

> If you mean "well, accessible provided that you have access", then you
> should consider that the internet is filtered to great lengths and so
> there is no clear map of what is accessible till you try to connect.

Yes, and I've noted in the article that "filtering/censorship by
governments and ISPs" can be performed.

> Also, you should consider that the internet != web

Yes, the article defines: 

  Web: the portion of the Internet which is accessible via a web
       browser; the World Wide Web. 

Getting this message across to non-technical people is hard. For many
the web *is* the Internet.

> and that even if we consider the web only, there are factors such as
> nameserver completeness, websites that have private portions + public
> ones, websites that require certain software & | hardware to provide
> ordinary functionality.

Yes, the private portions become the "deep web" in my definition. Not
"dark", just not searchable/accessible. Where software or hardware
which is not immediately available to users is involved I see that as
"dark".

> Everything is done in the open and everything is interconnected, but
> that does not mean there is no friction. Dark is the word westerns use
> to refer to that which they do not comprehend. There is no dark and
> there is no deep, the only ones who might think this way are those who
> were captured by the .com web2.0 bullshit later 90s, early 00's. The
> problem is they are the 99% as of nowadays. 

I disagree here. The dark web is the portion which is not accessible
from regular web clients and not done in the open, e.g. Tor hidden
services and I2P eepsites. I've also noted in the article that if we
consider dark *networks* instead of just the dark web then we also
should include VPN, P2P, VoIP and other overlay networks.

"Dark" can be associated with that which westerners do not comprehend:
that is in part, I think, what the Tor Project is trying to combat
through its "Who Uses Tor?" articles. Web 2.0 may be marketing
bullshit, but it's generally accepted and therefore needs to be
addressed. I'm hoping to document useful definitions and at the same
time dispel the myth that the dark web is many times larger than the
public web. While it's possible to just ignore the 99% it doesn't
really help the situation, and it certainly doesn't help expand the
reach and usefulness of Tor.

That's my view. If you come up with a better definition than "public"
then please update the article! My only wish is that any other term
will be understood by and useful for the 99% as they are ultimately the
target audience.
-- 
kat