Jump to content

Talk:Dark web

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrOllie (talk | contribs) at 13:08, 15 May 2022 (Reverted 1 edit by 106.78.79.119 (talk) to last revision by Novem Linguae). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zanthos434.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DominicKittel.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 2 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danisalv.

Terminology hell

And so it was, that I attempted to more rigidly define, Darknet (networking), the networks on which the Dark Web lives, whilst defining the Deep Web exclusively as non-search engine indexed content, despite its near constant use in the context of Dark Web. I hope future generations will thanks me Deku-shrub (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'dark web' seems to return just a few more results than 'deep web' Deku-shrub (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dark Web → Deep Web – Deep Web is by far the most common term, it's useless to fight this. Now we have Deep web search that's suitably distinct so this can move Deku-shrub (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose that is two separate topics. The "deep web" is the part of the web that is not indexed by internet search engines. That is the standard use for the term "deep web", and all those illustrations with icebergs representing the "web" where the "deep web" is the underwater and much larger portion of the web. "Deep web search" is a bad name for that, since its common name is "deep web".-- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "That is the standard use for the term "deep web"" - I wish this was the case but it's not.
    "and all those illustrations with icebergs representing the "web" where the "deep web" is the underwater and much larger portion of the web" - over half of them attempt to illustrate the Dark web, mixing in Deep web terminology actually. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It doesn't make sense to rename one topic to the name which it is commonly mistakenly called if that other name has its own meaning. Deep Web search is suitable distinct because nobody calls "the Deep Web" "Deep Web search", which means a kind of search. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the decision seems to have been to redirect Deep Web (search indexing) to Deep web search.SBaker43 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it to the less controversial Deep web (search) Deku-shrub (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per 67.70.32.190 (talk). This equating of the Dark Web (criminal, malicious operation) with the Deep Web (databases, secure networks, etc.) is confusing for the uninformed. Personal identity data/information (PII) is appropriately stored on the part of the Deep Web used by governments for serving their citizens and companies for their customers. The storage and sale of PII on the Dark Net by criminals is a completely different situation and the two must not be confused. This is as inappropriate as conflating drug dealers with drug company salespeople (drug reps) because they both market chemicals for human use.
    SBaker43 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The drug dealers don't care, they call it the Deep web as do most of the other users, the media, even the misleading infographics. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Seriously wtf Deku-shrub. It's false and it's also not how the term is commonly used. --Fixuture (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. I've created (what I consider) one of the most reliable list of notable hidden services at List of Tor hidden services and all of them refered to themselves internally as deep web sites. I've been researching this in detail for months now, I'm not impressed as you characterizing this as false. I recommend reading this dictionary.com blog and my piece on DeepDotWeb also Deku-shrub (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created (what I consider) one of the most reliable list of notable hidden services at List of Tor hidden services and all of them refered to themselves internally as deep web sites.
    That's why I find it weird to have this explained to you. Also I've only seen very few dark web sites which referred to themselves as "deep web" sites - could you name some? And those that did use that misguiding term were doing so because it was hyped on sites like 4chan even though it's all about the dark web and not the deep web (with the dark web being a tiny fraction of it).
    DeepDotWeb jumped on that hype-train as well. It's still the wrong term to use. Also note that there's a slight conflict of interest with DeepDotWeb. Never seen a piece about the deep web outside of the dark web on DeepDotWeb.
    Again; it's like saying we don't need an article about Dubstep because it's Electronic music or one about the United States because there's already one for the Americas.
    Seriously I find it really, really odd how one can add so much to both of those articles and not get a proper idea of their distinctions and why there's a need to distinguish them.
    --Fixuture (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the need to use the terms in a distinct fashion, hence the very much separate pages for Deep web (search) which I have no intention of mixing other than in the section complaining about the conflation and confusion.
    "Never seen a piece about the deep web outside of the dark web on DeepDotWeb" this is very frustrating because I've literally cited a bunch of examples where this has been done in the Deep web (search) terminology section. High traffic articles when the Silk Road first hit the news like this one from the Mail or the film Deep Web, which whilst continued to conflate the terms, used 'Deep web' througout.
    I've explored probably 100 deep web sites now (they are hard to find, and unreliable as hell), documenting many of them either on List of Tor hidden services or Operation Onymous. I am a regular viewer and occasional contributor to /r/darknetmarkets/ (aside - where the term 'darknet' is often used, not dark web). According to Google, deep web is an order of magnitude more popular than dark web - and no, this isn't because people are discussing search techniques more often, it's because of the darknet markets and Tor. This useage meets Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Determining_a_primary_topic. Deep Web may be a skunked term, but my research has shown me this is a trend impossible to reverse by forcing the use of the term, and more than it would effective to persuade people to use the historical use of decimate or literally. The Dark web, the Deep web (in a non search context) and the darknet (in a non networking context) are the same thing, with the most popular term being Deep web. Hence Deep web should be the primary article Deku-shrub (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dark web (mistakenly vs confusingly) referred to as the Deep Web

Right @Fixuture:, we need to hash this one out. Deep web is a skunked term this means the use is confusing, not mistaken any more. Let's look at some statistics. These people are not talking about Deep web (search), they are talking about the alternative name for the Dark Web, which is the deep web.

Are you familiar with the controversy over 'literately' now meaning figuratively? Here are some examples.

  • "The Deep web where the Silk Road was is over 90% of the internet" - mistaken
  • "Where to do I search for drugs online, do I search the deep web?" - confusing
  • "I downloaded Tor so I could browse the deep web" - use of the alternative term, only a tiny bit confusing

I did another blog piece about this recently which I recommend you read. In the mean time I will encompass both a mistaken use and a confusing use into the lead to cover both angles. 13:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You cant help me? 

Syahril0192 (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darknets overlay the internet

Overlay network

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/overlay

Surely this is the right term? Deku-shrub (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In "overlay network", overlay is a noun, not a verb, so it's not terribly relevant, except insofar as it confirms that some word from the {overlie, overlay} family is likely to be appropriate.
The difference between overlie and overlay is that overlay requires three participants — for example, "X overlays Y with Z" means "X lays Z on top of Y" — whereas overlie requires only two — for example, "X overlies Y" means "X lies on top of Y". We want the latter. (This is analogous to the general traditional difference between lie and lay, but whereas the use of lay for traditional lie is relatively common, and acknowledged by most dictionaries, the use of overlay for overlie is still rare, and only a few dictionaries mention it.)
(By the way, a self-correction: in one of my edit summaries, I wrote, "'overlay' requires a direct object". This was misleading on my part, since "overlie" also requires a direct object (and the article does provide one). This is in the nature of the prefix over-.)
—RuakhTALK 15:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for 'network overlie' I'm unable to find a single usage of this on a general search or news search. Searching for articles providing descriptions of overlay networks, I never see the word 'overlie' ever used. :/ Deku-shrub (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And can you find any occurrences of "network overlay" using "overlay" as a verb? (Answer: no.) If you want to completely reword the sentence to be consistent with standard terminology, then be my guest; but it makes no sense to preserve an ungrammatical word choice on the grounds that it happens by coincidence to share a word-form with a different standard usage. —RuakhTALK 02:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's this edit look? Deku-shrub (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've made a further tweak, grammar-wise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Web?diff=681850111. —RuakhTALK 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Dark Internet

I just discovered Dark Internet. This should be merged into this article. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it a redirect now, there may be elements worth salvaging from the latest revision however Deku-shrub (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge/redirect here into Dark Web, or equally Deep web (search). Most current content has been added by 1BatuhanK (talk · contribs · count · logs); including addition to opening paragraph, which states: "The dark internet's size can't be measured, however it's estimated that it's 500 times larger than the Surface Web." making it quite clear the topic is Dark / Deep Web. If the POV "Dangers of the Dark Internet" section of Dark Internet is neutralized, very little is salvageable other than opening paragraph, which is already present in the two aforementioned candidates for merger (is basically content fork and amalgamation of those). The "Dark Internet (also referred as Deep web) vs Dark Net" section of Dark Internet further makes clear it is referring to Dark / Deep Web: "The main difference is that the Dark Internet can be accessed by any user on the internet, however these hosts are hidden from the general public and can only accessed by the people who have created them and the people that know the location of the host." Seems like conflation of Deep Web... or just internets in general. -- dsprc [talk] 14:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like this web AhmadNabilRahman (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me 

Syahril0192 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too the web is the fucking best Odion lateef (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New section: Size

The sources I could find talk about (1) size of the deep web (2) the fraction of deep web that are intranets (3) the number of Tor Hidden services. It is not much, but from this we may start to put together a Size section in the article. We must first establish that dark web is a subset of the deep web. Article already does that. We must also clarify that intranets are a prominent example of a darknet and therefore websites on intranets are a part of the dark web. I propose to add the following to the lead:

[The darknets which constitute the dark web include] governemntal and corporate intranets,[1][2] [...]

Now we can create a Size section containing this

The deep web has been estimated to be 500 times the size of the surface web.[3] The dark web is a small part of the deep web. The majority of deep web (estimated 54%) are freely accessible databases on the clearnet and therefore not part of the dark web.[4]

Dark web pages accessible only through intranets constitute 13% of the deep web.[4] The number of Tor Hidden services is estimated to be on the order of thousands.[5] Assuming the above numbers to be true, intranets are 65 times larger than the surface web. Tor hidden services on the other hand are insignificant in number.

I've already done the edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dark_web&diff=701749447&oldid=701691746, but User:Deku-shrub reverted it with a comment wishing to discuss this. I am therefore asking for comments on my proposed edit. TvojaStara (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused with deep web (search). Add that sort of info in there if needed. Deku-shrub (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I have it straight. TvojaStara (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of your citations back you up Deku-shrub (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back me up saying exactly WHAT? TvojaStara (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of them describe the dark web in the size you're citing. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean "intranets are 65 times larger than the surface web"? 65 is 500*13%. 500 comes from refs 3 (and 5 which itself cites 3) and 13% comes from ref 4. TvojaStara (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intranets refer to deep web (search) Deku-shrub (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intranets are dark web as well as deep web. It is deep web because it is unsearchable on Google. It is dark web because you need special authorization to access it. Often you need to connect from inside the corporate network to access it. TvojaStara (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed mistaken and this content should not be included. They are deep not dark. Simplification: dark = overlay, F2F nets, etc; deep = not publicly indexed (except maybe by Shodan) . -- dsprc [talk] 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article defines dark web as "World Wide Web content that exists on darknets". Darknets are "overlay networks which use the public Internet but which require specific software, configurations or authorization to access." Intranets do require authorization to access. You may need specific software --- VPN client --- to connect to an intranet. In fact, intranets were the first darknets ever: "The term [darknet] was originally coined in the 1970s to designate networks which were isolated from ARPANET (which evolved into the Internet) for security purposes. Some darknets were able to receive data from ARPANET but had addresses which didn’t appear in the network lists and would not answer pings or other inquiries.".[6]
Intranets are not on the world wide web Deku-shrub (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are on the world wide web at least as much as the Tor network is TvojaStara (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Deku-shrub (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that corporate intranet websites are dark web? TvojaStara (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No of course not Deku-shrub (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you accept that intranets are darknets? TvojaStara (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see you edited this into Darknet as well, I have reverted Deku-shrub (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in my reply to Dsprc here why intranets are darknets. You did not address that explanation of mine. Please do so. TvojaStara (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this is getting tedious and goes nowhere, so I filled a dispute resolution request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Dark_web.23New_section:_Size TvojaStara (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just cite a source which connects the two Deku-shrub (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "The term [darknet] was originally coined in the 1970s" reference provides a sufficiently strong link. What about "A Darknet isn't as much a new technology as an old idea -- the corporate Intranet -- reconstructed for a paranoid age." from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/magazine/14DARKNETS.html?

Redefinition of darknet

The definition currently on the page says

The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks which use the public Internet but which require specific software, configurations or authorization to access.[2][3]

While I was searching for references linking darknets and intranets, I came to the conclusion that maybe we may want to reevaluate the definition of the darknet in this and the darknet articles. (I do agree with defining dark web as the web on darknets.)

Here is a dump of the definitions for darknet I came across:

  • While a "darknet" is an online network such as Freenet that is concealed from non-users, with all the potential for transgressive behaviour that implies.
  • A Darknet isn't as much a new technology as an old idea -- the corporate Intranet -- reconstructed for a paranoid age. A Darknet offers all the security of a private in-house network, but it allows users to send encrypted messages and documents around the world through that vast, bustling, danger-filled wasteland of sprawl called the Internet.
  • However, Darknet (the term is often used interchangeably with Deepnet), is much more than just prevention of indexing by search engines. The websites on Darknet are anonymous, i.e., you cannot tell who the website are, owners when visiting such Darknet websites. Non-indexed website owners can still be traced out looking at who purchased the domain name etc. Websites in Darknet are sites that are using the Tor (The Onion Router) network. The basis of Tor network is to include so many nodes that the origin cannot trace where the data is going or where it is coming from. [...] The Darknet is a part of Internet that hosts anonymous websites that may or not be offering legal content.
  • darknet is any overlay network like a VPN, but that is my interpretation, it is not stated explicitly
  • To escape liability, consumers demanded that P2P developers follow their own precedent and improve distributed networks to shield users from liability by providing users with anonymity, privacy, and increased security control.108 These newest versions of distributed networks, known as darknets, pose a serious threat to copyright enforcement on the Internet by concealing user behavior from detection. [...] In November 2002, four senior Microsoft security engineers coined the term “Darknet” in an influential paper entitled The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. In a post-Napster, pre-Gnutella environment, the engineers defined darknets broadly as “a collection of networks and technologies used to share digital content.”111 Since then, the term has infiltrated the mainstream media and been used to refer to a variety of clandestine Internet activities and technologies. [...] More recently, the term is used to differentiate private, anonymous distributed networks from their public predecessors.115 In his groundbreaking legal work regarding darknets, Fred von Lohmann incorporated the element of privacy, defining the Darknet as “[t]he collection of networks and other technologies that enable people to illegally share copyrighted digital files with little or no fear of detection.” In his 2005 book, Darknet: Hollywood’s War Against the Digital Generation, Darknet expert J.D. Lasica emphasized that darknets can be used for illegitimate activities.117 Lascia defined darknets as “networks of people who rely on closed-off social spaces—safe havens in both virtual and real worlds where there is little or no fear of detection—to share copyrighted digital material with others or to escape the restrictions on digital media imposed by entertainment companies.” [...] The goal of darknets is to create a closed network to communicate securely in a manner that defies detection or penetration by governments or corporations.122 A user can download, upload, and inject content anonymously, meaning an outsider cannot sufficiently identify a user.123 Improvements in privacy and security permit increased anonymity, and the lack of a public entry point to the network makes it difficult or impossible for outsiders to discover what users share on darknets.
    • http://jolt.richmond.edu/v16i4/article14.pdf, one of the references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network#Darknet. The article lists multiple definitions one after another. I assume it is supposed to illustrate that the definition was changing through time and the last one is the current one. The wiki page offers three separate definitions one after another and there is no commentary to make them compatible. One of them is IMO wrong or too narrow at best (the one about trusted peers).

My take on this is a follows, using the "The term [darknet] was originally coined in the 1970s" reference and the paper http://jolt.richmond.edu/v16i4/article14.pdf

  1. In the 1970's, darknet was the name for what we now call the intranet. Arpanet used to be open and now some people were closing off parts of it for security reasons. In contrast to the rest of the network, which was open, intranets truly were dark.
  2. When LANs became commonplace in corporations, it was not technically feasible to give every computer a public IP and not doing so even had security benefits, so we get intranets, then Microsoft IIS appears and we get internal corporate webpages on intranet, intranets are commonplace and therefore there is nothing "dark" about it. The term darknet stopped being used.
  3. It has resurfaced in the 2002 The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution paper with a so-broad-that-it-is-almost-useless definition "a collection of networks and technologies used to share digital content."
  4. Then it was made more specific by focusing on the anonymous file sharing that started to appear “[t]he collection of networks and other technologies that enable people to illegally share copyrighted digital files with little or no fear of detection.”
  5. The 2005 book again broadens the term to encompass closed-off and covert social copyright-infringing interactions regardless of technology "networks of people who rely on closed-off social spaces—safe havens in both virtual and real worlds where there is little or no fear of detection—to share copyrighted digital material with others or to escape the restrictions on digital media imposed by entertainment companies.”"
  6. There is also definition that focuses on maintaining privacy against powerful adversary regardless of purpose "The goal of darknets is to create a closed network to communicate securely in a manner that defies detection or penetration by governments or corporations".
  7. One definition focuses on the aspect of hiding the network itself "the lack of a public entry point to the network makes it difficult or impossible for outsiders to discover what users share on darknets."

Most definitions focus on copyright infringement, which I think is too narrow. I think that the definition should not either talk about the purpose at all, or possibly very broadly (communication, data exchange).

It would seem that definitions 5, 6 and 7 require darknets to be F2F networks. The definitions use words like "closed" and "outsider". These definitions do not encompass .onion sites. Too bad, since I quite like definition 6.

Other sources I found focus more on the technological side of things.

  • "that is concealed from non-users, with all the potential for transgressive behaviour that implies"
    • That definition does not fit any more, if ever. Tor is high profile and anything but concealed from non-users.
  • "However, Darknet (the term is often used interchangeably with Deepnet), is much more than just prevention of indexing by search engines. The websites on Darknet are anonymous, i.e., you cannot tell who the website are, owners when visiting such Darknet websites. Non-indexed website owners can still be traced out looking at who purchased the domain name etc. Websites in Darknet are sites that are using the Tor (The Onion Router) network. The basis of Tor network is to include so many nodes that the origin cannot trace where the data is going or where it is coming from. [...] The Darknet is a part of Internet that hosts anonymous websites that may or not be offering legal content."
    • I like this one. Dark web is anonymous websites, i.e., you cannot tell who the owners are when visiting such websites. I think the definition should not focus only on Tor, though. The article has language issues, so it does not look "trustworthy".

Conclusion

We should decide whether we want a technical or social definition. The best social definition IMO is "The goal of darknets is to create a closed network to communicate securely in a manner that defies detection or penetration by governments or corporations". I would drop the word "closed", though, since not all darknets are F2F, and replace securely with privately and anonymously, to clarify what we mean by it. In other words, I am not satisfied with any social definition I have seen so far.

Technical definition may include overlay networks, because that is how it is being done. Regarding "special software and configuration", I think this is too vague. It assumes that darknets are obscure and therefore the software is special. This is not a requirement, in fact, truth is the opposite. The more users, the more anonymity.

I'd say darknet is any communication network that protects the identity of the participants, content of the communication and hides who is communicating with whom. It uses traffic anonymization and encryption to achieve this. Intranets certainly do not fit that updated definition (I still claim they do fit the current one in the article, but that is besides the point now). The problem is, this is exactly the definition of an anonymity network. Which is not bad, in fact, Category:Anonymity_networks links to Darknet as to the main article for the category. This would also mean that dart web is completely orthogonal to deep web (and not its subset as the deep web article says now). You can index websites without being able to find out who owns them.

Whether we should emphasize the illegality of things in the definition is another matter and I am unsure in this respect. Probably yes, to be in keeping with the tone of the rest of the article. Whole dark web article gives the impression that dark web is full of illegal things. I am not saying this is not the truth. There may be people who would say this is not the most important thing to focus at (freedom of expression is), but whatever. As the saying goes, "What is whispered is usually illicit." TvojaStara (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make the case of intranet's inclusion into darknet, why are you not making the case there? It appears you've come to a conclusion and are back-filling your reasoning. Why are you writing an essay about this whilst simultanously moving swiftly to dispute resolution when you didn't get your way? Intranets are not overlay networks. Industrial control systems are not overlay networks. IOT home networks are not overlay networks.
I am doing both. I am saying that under the current definition in the article, intranet should be included. I am also saying that the definition in the article is incorrect and (I am adding now) in fact is not even supported by the references. First reference (number 2 in the article) http://www.wired.com/2014/11/hacker-lexicon-whats-dark-web/ says "Dark Web is a collection of websites that are publicly visible, yet hide the IP addresses of the servers that run them. That means anyone can visit a Dark Web site, but it can be very difficult to figure out where they’re hosted—or by whom." The second article http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/internet/what-is-dark-web-how-access-dark-web-deep-joc-3593569/ says "The Dark Web is a term that refers specifically to a collection of websites that are publicly visible, but hide the IP addresses of the servers that run them. Thus they can be visited by any web user, but it is very difficult to work out who is behind the sites. And you cannot find these sites using search engines.". The article talks about "World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks which use the public Internet but which require specific software, configurations or authorization to access." The second article is inaccurate in saying that you cannot find dark websites with search engines. There are such ssearch engines, see the "Hidden Service lists and search engines" section at http://thehiddenwiki.org/. TvojaStara (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one is focusing on the legality of things except yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for defining things, it's a place for compiling existing definitions. Yours does not even exist anywhere.
Look at the definitions from the http://jolt.richmond.edu/v16i4/article14.pdf article. Most definitions there are focusing on the legality. TvojaStara (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote about my efforts on wikipedia definitions back in summer by the way, this may interest you. https://www.deepdotweb.com/2015/06/08/the-dark-web-deep-web-and-dark-net-terminology-hell/ Deku-shrub (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your article already. It is mostly a collection of links to Wikipedia and elsewhere. It defines deep web but it does not define dark web, except by saying that it is something different than deep web. TvojaStara (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dark web = I2P sites and tor hidden services Deku-shrub (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very different from the definition that we now have on Wikipedia. What is your source? TvojaStara (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very different, it's an abridged definition. Why are you even discussing this, didn't want to do this under dispute resolution? Deku-shrub (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your "abridged" definition does not include e.g. FreeNet sites and includes all hidden services [e.g. IRC], not just hidden web servers. TvojaStara (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen freenet refereed to as the dark web, I believe because it doesn't run traditional http websites. IRC may exist on the darknet, but as it not websites, is not a part of the dark web Deku-shrub (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @TvojaStara: Please engage on the Dispute Resolution which you have opened regarding this matter. If not going to take part please express an interest to withdraw the motion and notify moderators over there as to not consume volunteers' limited time. -- dsprc [talk] 23:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "HERE COMES THE INTRANET", 1996, AMY CORTESE, BusinessWeek
  2. ^ "Intranet Define Intranet at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 January 2016. A network operating like the World Wide Web but having access restricted to a limited group of authorized users (as employees of a company).
  3. ^ "White Paper: The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value". Retrieved 26 January 2016.
  4. ^ a b "The Deep Web you don't know about". money.cnn.com. Retrieved 26 January 2016. Another 13% of pages lie hidden because they're only found on an Intranet.
  5. ^ "How Big is the Dark Web?". torproject.org. Retrieved 26 January 2016.
  6. ^ "Om Darknet". Retrieved 29 January 2016.

Recent disputed removals

@John "Hannibal" Smith: I felt my edits were sufficiently cited. You'll see from my edit history and general on this page I'm very familiar with the subject matter in question, I stand by all edits. Can you provide some rationale for your disagreements please? Deku-shrub (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku-shrub: It was not a disagreement about content, and the reason for reverting your edits was clearly explained in the edit summary and on your talk page. You deleted large portions of text, without sufficient justification. Your edit summaries consisted of "uncited", "talks about darknet/Tor, not dark web, drugs already covered", and "spoilers not needed", along with two others that had no explanation at all. None of those are sufficient, nor do they provide any evidence to support what you're saying. Your edit history is not justification for making these edits. To delete such large portions of text, you need to cite reliable sources and show verifiable evidence that refutes the previously accepted text, otherwise your deletions are simply based on personal knowledge and/or opinion, and will be reverted by other editors.
You may feel that way, but Wikipedia has clear rules for editing. You're not the only one with expertise in this subject matter, and yet that is not relevant here. If you want to start a new discussion here to propose the deletion of certain text in the article and provide reliable sources to refute existing content, then by all means. Be sure to reach consensus with other editors before reintroducing the edits, and provide better citation and reasoning.
To be clear, the issue at hand is not whether you are correct or not, but whether there is sufficient evidence to back up your edits. I do realize you're familiar with this topic, but too many editors lately are just winging it and making edits based on personal knowledge and opinion, and we need everyone to follow the ground rules. Please review: WP:PRESERVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, and WP:UNRESPONSIVE. Thank you. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 13:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John "Hannibal" Smith: I suppose I'll present my extended rationale here, not that I think it was necessary in the first place. I expect you'll looking for patterns in editing which makes this suspect from your POV.
Social media - I've been performing interviews and background research on the subject of dark web social media sites to fill this page and I have never come across a notable Reddit clone. There is no Facebook clone, just a non-notable hacker networking site and the Twitter alternative I'm aware of, Twister doesn't even use Tor. As for accessing this information via the Hidden Wiki - that is a terrible idea due to the numerous hidden wiki sites and their associated scams. As such I removed it. If @Ishan710: has a problem with this they can add it later with a citation.
Mr Robot reference as per my comment contains both a spoiler for the show and does not relate to the subject matter directly
The Darknet section doesn't apply to the dark web at all, the editor who put it in make the common mistake of confusing Tor/Darknet with the dark web. The Russian source doesn't mention the dark web, some 'marketers guide' link looks suspiciously like spam, it's just a login with no archive.org copy. The final section on darknet markets either belongs within Dark_web#Darknet_markets or more specifically within the darknet market article. This was in fact the last section standing from @Anastasia192: who made little effort as a part of their university course to research the definitions they were using and consequently to integrate their research into this section.
Thus concludes my extended edit summary - can you see my point of view now? :) Deku-shrub (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 18:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John "Hannibal" Smith: :p Deku-shrub (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deku-shrub: I think I have a good "compromise". (Really just a suggestion/challenge.) For each item you want to delete, replace it with some good info relating to what you have discovered in your research. Hows that sound? Like I said...just a suggestion. Do what makes sense to you. I'm sure you have some valuable info to offer. Take care. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 13:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I infrequently publish in notable publications, my research I'm mentioning is to the negative. I maintain this page (and others at RationalWiki) to the extent of my knowledge at any give time. As such I have no substitutions. Deku-shrub (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Web based Hidden Services in February 2016

What is Nexus? Also, how does one edit the table? ZFT (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“creepy indie game Sad Satan”

I know nothing about the dark web so was looking for information on the subject. While reading through I encountered the phrase “creepy indie game Sad Satan.” Please forgive my ignorance if incorrect, but isn’t creepy considered a subjective term? I am in no way saying the game wouldn’t be considered creepy by the vast majority of people (I have no personal familiarity with it; as I said, was just looking for info on the subject of the dark web), but rather positing the possibility that this is a subjective assessment.

I’ve never before tried to edit a page and as of yet am not even really sure how, but did take the opportunity to register and investigate the process. But in this particular instance, before submitting any edit I wanted to see if there is agreement with the proposed change (that is, reframe the sentence without using creepy, or cite a source for its use).

Am I off base here?

Thanks, Kevin Kevtieman (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source describes it as a creepy game. The text seems fine. --SubSeven (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology Hell June 2018

Please take a look at #Terminology hell as of 2015.

  • Darkweb-Deepweb is explained properly, but thrice. Too much emphasized. Futatsu de jubun desu yo.
  • Darkweb-Darknet: There exists the article about Darknet, but Dark web still has explaination about Darknet in detail. We can reduce the amount of this document greatly, removing duplicated description.
  • #Terminology and #Definition can be merged into one section. The goal is defining Darkweb, Deepweb and Darknet. And some simple explanation about those differences.

Thoughts?

Summary 

The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, ...
The darknets which constitute the dark web include small, friend-to-friend peer-to-peer networks, as well as large, popular networks like Tor, Freenet, and I2P, operated by public organizations and individuals. ...

Definition 

Darknet websites are accessible only through networks such as Tor ("The Onion Router") and I2P ("Invisible Internet Project").

In Definition, small networks such as F2F P2P are gone. I mean, this document is too long. The summary at the top should not mention issues omitted from the detailed article. --Askr (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding information

I would like to add some information to this article for my comp 2 class but it says the article is locked and wont let me edit if anyone has the ability to grant me access to edit this page it would be greatly appreciated.(Adammccartney1026 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

27.97.159.238 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is not good for all we will try to make our self country best

And what should be changed? For unprotection, please go to WP:RUP. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the dark web is fake as known it is a fact that it is a myth belive me evrey vido or thing saying its is lying just to scare dont belive anthing andbody else says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.101.30.184 (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

42.0.7.228 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Change: "The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks that use the Internet but require specific software, configurations, or authorization to access.[1][2] The dark web forms a small part of the deep web, the part of the Web not indexed by web search engines, although sometimes the term deep web is mistakenly used to refer specifically to the dark web.[3]"

To:

"The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks that use the Internet but require specific software, configurations, or authorization to access.[1][2] The dark web forms a small part of the deep web, although sometimes the term deep web is mistakenly used to refer specifically to the dark web.[3] This part of the Web is not indexed by traditional web search engines, and nowadays can be viewed by designated dark web search engines." Bergiz (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Change the following section: The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks that use the Internet but require specific software, configurations, or authorization to access.[1][2] The dark web forms a small part of the deep web, the part of the Web not indexed by web search engines, although sometimes the term deep web is mistakenly used to refer specifically to the dark web.[3]

Change to: "The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks that use the Internet but require specific software, configurations, or authorization to access.[1][2] The dark web forms a small part of the deep web, although sometimes the term deep web is mistakenly used to refer specifically to the dark web.[3] This part of the Web is not indexed by traditional web search engines, and nowadays can be viewed by designated dark web search engines."

Can you add a reference for the dark web search engines to: https://webhose.io/blog/dark-web/the-top-5-dark-web-search-engines/ since it's simply incorrect to say that it is not indexed by web search engines. Bergiz (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can probably add "regular web search engines", but it would be an overstatement to say they can be viewed with these search engines since they have very limited coverage. That link is a WP:BLOG and so isn't a good source. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined: Per above. Also, I think the sentence the part of the Web not indexed by web search engines addresses the main gist of your edit request, no? This doesn't seem like it would improve the article, or the lead, enough to warrant a change. Not to mention there is already a link to deep web in the lead. These types of requests, furthermore, are typically executed only with reliable sources, too. Thank you. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 17:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

2409:4061:2D13:1C24:5DB7:EDD1:65D9:7064 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

please change" the term deep web is mistakenly used to refer specifically to the dark web.[3]" to " the term deep web is mistakenly uesd as dark web " 2409:4062:2E9C:518A:51C7:9303:501:C7A4 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording is preferable and more clear. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

1.1.182.109 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1101:DCD:F1BA:4470:51C3:8106 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Request to remove "straphanger" from "private straphanger networks"

Straphanger refers to someone holding onto a strap for support while standing on a public transport bus or train. It can also to refer to any passenger of public transport. No common English usage dictionary or nontechnical document I can find uses it in the way it is used here in the introductory paragraph. Here, "private straphanger network" presumably means a private network that "rides" on the public Internet. This would be more clear if the straphanger jargon was removed and so that the introduction did not introduce a new uninformative term. Simply "private network" will do. If it makes sense to be more explicit, some mention of the fact that private _dark web_ networks can communicate with each other and individual users with standard web traffic encryption protocols (SSL) that all modern browsers are capable of. At least the mention of SSL would facilitate a link to other pages explaining the technology that makes it possible for the dark web to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobsonlane (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Red room" etymology

This has been discussed before, but are there any *credible* sources linking this term to the flash animation? It is hard for me to believe this is indeed the etymology, rather than a misnomer, as the flash animation and irban legend have nothing to do with this topic - they simply describe a haunted pop up which drives people to suicide, moreover the popularity of this animation fell sharply in the late 00s.

The much more likely origin of this term is based on the movie Red Room, which is about a live stream of four people playing a "game" of torture and murder for paying audience. See article here for more info. I believe this should be at least noted on the page.

2A00:1028:83A2:4CEE:EDFC:A442:7619:A15C (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

103.146.136.73 (talk)

windows/darknet/tcp hack

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 00:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"private straphanger networks"

The term "private straphanger networks" appears in the second sentence of the lead. Could someone explain what it means, please? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just some meaningless vandalism that needed reverting. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a reference that could be useful to this article

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/50/31716 Here's the abstract: "Measuring the proportion of Tor anonymity network users who employ the system for malicious purposes is important as this technology can facilitate child abuse, the sale of illicit drugs, and the distribution of malware. We show that only a small fraction of users globally (∼6.7%) likely use Tor for malicious purposes on an average day. However, this proportion clusters unevenly across countries, with more potentially malicious Tor users in “free” countries (∼7.8%) than in “not free” regimes (∼4.8%). These results suggest that the countries which host most of the infrastructure of the network and house the Tor Project plausibly experience a disproportional amount of harm from the Tor anonymity network." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.142.3 (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Hidden Services size

Some metrics could be added :

As of December 2020, the number of active Tor sites in .onion was estimated at 76,300 (containing a lot of copies). Of these, 18 000 would have original content.

Le Dark Web en chiffres (fr) The Dark web in numbers (en) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagga (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Add Flashpoint to the sentence in the Commentary and Policing section so that it reads: "Specialist companies, such as Darksum, Flashpoint, and Recorded Future track dark-web cybercrime goings-on for law enforcement purposes." Add source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/criminal-charges-filed-los-angeles-and-alaska-conjunction-seizures-15-websites-offering-ddos. 10nh10 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We're not going to namedrop particular companies. - MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Here is an additional academic source that consolidates the various definitions of the Dark Web. Link: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/71193/0467.pdf It is a peer-reviewed paper in the Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (January 2021). This could be referenced on line one. Meister808 (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Page temporarily semi-protected as recent edits have all been unrelated to improving the article and it's a timesink for volunteers to have to keep reverting them. Apologies to anyone who had a legitimate edit to make and will now have to wait a short while to do so. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dark_web&oldid=1087959262"