Web 3.0: A Decentralised Revolution for Freedom
A technological revolution is underway as the current version of the internet known as Web 2.0, based on centralised control by large technology companies, gives way for Web 3.0.
This latest iteration is decentralised and features evolving technologies, such as Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) using blockchain, cryptography, peer-to-peer networks and user ownership. This shift was foreseen by Timothy C. May’s in his 1988 paper ‘The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto’ where he predicted a technological revolution featuring a truly decentralised internet free from authoritarian oversight. These features can be harnessed to protect human rights and democracy and increase trust, transparency and immutability.
DLT has immense utility because it addresses the problem of trust, providing a tamper proof and immutable ledger for data entry. Such systems protect data from third-party interference by ensuring the safe transfer and storage of data.
Moreover, Web 3.0 and associated technologies can solve problems of trust and verifiability in logistics networks and supply chains, smart contracts and archive storage. Organisations implicated in human rights violations often seek deniability, in the first instance, and will usually commence a campaign of disinformation and misinformation.
It can be difficult to gather and store evidence of atrocities or protect vulnerable witnesses and journalists, especially when governments are implicated and have the entire apparatus of the state at their disposal to censor information. According to Hellstern et al. (2022) databases stored on centralised systems and supported by Web 2.0 are vulnerable to attack and data leakages which can put victims at further risk of harm. However, DLTs using blockchains and other cryptographic technologies can create secure and immutable systems out of reach of third parties that would seek to tamper with the data.
Metadata can be generated each time data are added and a unique hash created to provide further proof of time and location. Even if a central authority were to order a takedown of such testimony, the multi nodal nature of the architecture would make that impossible.
An example of how this technology is being used to create immutable historical archives comes from Starling Lab for Data Integrity, which represents a partnership between the Department of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University and the Shoah Foundation. This project uses cryptographic tools and decentralised web controls to protect sensitive data and promote trust.
The project seeks to understand how authentication technology can promote trust in journalism, how authenticated metadata can secure chains of evidence, and how cryptography can be used to preserve and protect digital records. Case examples include raising awareness of the destruction of wetlands in Brazil, verifying the authenticity of photographs taken during the US Presidential elections, and collecting the testimonies of 55,000 victims of the holocaust.
In the UK, concerns about networks of predominantly Pakistani heritage men carrying out organised child sexual exploitation (CSE) reached national attention after Andrew Norfolk published an article in the Times newspaper in 2011. This eventually led to the commission and publication of the Jay Report in 2014, which estimated that 1,400 victims had been exploited in Rotherham, and was followed by other local inquiries and reports including a serious case review into CSE in Oxfordshire, an assurance review of multi-agency responses into CSE in Greater Manchester and an independent inquiry into child exploitation in Telford. These reports suggest that widespread networks of abusers targeting children and young people in major towns and cities have been allowed to flourish due to failures in the criminal justice system, social services and local councils.
Consistent failures to disrupt these perpetrators and their networks has led to suggestions of organised cover-ups to shield political power bases and protect organisational reputation. Finally, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that a public inquiry into gang-based organised CSE will be established with the power to compel witnesses under the Inquiries Act 2005.
The recent publication of Louise Casey’s national audit into the nature, scale and characteristics of “group-based child sexual exploitation” on behalf of the Home Office may have informed this change of mind as well as Rupert Lowe’s Rape Gang Inquiry, which seeks to uncover “what happened, how did it happen, why was it allowed to happen?”
When suspected corruption or cover-ups are a possibility it is important to consider the technology being used to house potentially incriminating data to ensure the data are accurately logged and tamper proof. Centralised systems designed on Web 2.0 do not provide this guarantee and distributed ledger technology is the best way to achieve this. Given the questions a public inquiry might raise about the interplay of culture, religion, corruption, politics, criminality and public sector failure, it is possible that it may not take place, or will be delayed, or its remit will be so narrowly defined that it will neither reveal the true nature of the problem or identify the tools to disrupt and prevent further abuse from occurring.
For example, the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse by Professor Alexis Jay in 2022 which covered abuse in care homes, public schools and the Catholic church, failed to seriously address this type of gang-based abuse. Moreover, intimidation of witnesses, both victims and professionals, remains a significant cause for concern.
A large scale human rights atrocity of this nature requires the establishment of a National Archive for the Survivors of Grooming Gangs as that proposed by Donna Rachel Edmunds. This could have a prosecutorial role as well as serving a national memorial to all those affected. Moreover, an archive of this nature supported and protected using Web 3.0 and DLT using the latest cryptographic technology would provide an immutable record that would be protected from censorship, sabotage and cyber-attacks.
However, the transition to Web 3.0 does not come without its concerns. Criminal networks and other bad actors can take advantage of its decentralised nature to act remotely and hide their activities under a cloak of anonymity. Decentralisation has enabled the development of the Dark Web Marketplace (DWM), where online platforms enable financial crime and other illegal trades including human trafficking and child pornography, facilitated by new payment methods and financial assets, including Anonymity Enhanced Cryptocurrencies (AEC), posing significant challenges to international law enforcement.
In another example of Web 3.0 misuse, criminal networks employ ransomware and attack vectors such as Denial of Service (DoS) to extort organisations and individuals by encrypting their data and demanding cryptocurrency payments in return for decryption – with no guarantee that this will be forthcoming. The UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) identifies this as the greatest cybercrime threat, while the Home Office considers it a national security risk, particularly when critical infrastructure is targeted.
Although Web 3.0 comes with associated risks, its advantages in protecting human rights and immutability in public records have the potential to mitigate some of these concerns.
Technological developments associated with Web 3.0 have applications that extend beyond the creation of cryptocurrencies with which most people associate it. DLT, blockchains and cryptography have the capacity to solve problems in relation to trust, authoritarian control and potential sabotage from bad actors. Moreover, they can be used to preserve data for evidential, research and historical reasons including creating a secure repository of organised child sexual exploitation in the UK.
See more here Daily Sceptic
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
JFK
| #
1) In the era of quantum computing, insanely insecure software, and AI, trusting current cryptographic methods used in DLT is naive. Do not underestimate what big money and big tech can do to things you consider “safe”.
2) NO-ONE cares about “trust and verifiability in logistics networks and supply chains, smart contracts and archive storage”. If you care about those things, create a seperate network for those, don’t use the internet. The only people that care about those things are in big government, because they want to keep a file on everyone and everything.
3) What people care about is privacy, software security, and freedom. Based on that, the desired system MUST protect every-day users the same way it protects human traffickers and people promoting child pornography. I am sorry, but there is no other way, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. The authorities must have to find another way to solve the problems they create themselves.
4) Terms like “authentication technology”, “user identity”, “device identity”, etc, should be eliminated from the internet, unless you are managing your bank account, which you shouldn’t be doing online to begin with. The internet must be untraceable, identity agnostic, and safe. If you need to access a restricted resource, you could use an access token that is reusable by anyone and other right-to-access proof methods. That means that the entire internet and its protocols must be redesigned, access controls must be redesigned for privacy, all modern operating systems must be discarded for some new and safer alternative that uses no C/C++ code, web browsers (a.k.a. remote code execution targets) must be redesigned from scratch, and that governments and other authorities should go out of the business of policing people on the internet.
If none of the above happens, web 3.0 will only be worse, not better.
Reply