20 years ago I setup an anonymous FTP server just see what would happen. It lasted a few weeks before I had to shut it down but it was an interesting experiment in humanity. Certainly there may be a good way to provide a service like this but it needs an incredible amount of thought.
Some people just need to execute on an idea to learn. I don't quite get the pessimistic comments here. I don't really blame anonfiles for trying. It certainly provided a lot of experience and certainly opened their eyes on how difficult it is to offer a service like this. This experience will help them to build something better in the future even if the next thing they build has nothing to do with distributing files for anonymous users.
I used to run one for years in that time frame (actually earlier). Basically it was a bunch of warez in hidden directories which was nice because I also wanted photoshop.
I found it funny. I'd go in and be like "oh look, I've been looking for that software. Thanks hackers!"
I still have an anonymous SFTP server. Bots would find it and not know what to do with it as they only how to exploit shell access. I was hoping they would upload interesting exploits but many years later, still nothing. Bots would upload to FTP assuming it was also available over HTTPS. Nowadays I use it as one of many learning tools to see how many bots I can cause to get stuck since SSH does not encrypt the initial client/server negotiation which includes a version banner.
This makes me want to open a random FTP server for fun. And/or a simple website where you can upload or download anything (not privately, to a shared folder)
Probably nothing would happen but it would be interesting.:)
How so? Atleast one guy did something that made you shut it down. What insight does that give? Surely you knew there is at least one bad guy using the internets before the experiment?
It wasn't one guy that made me shut it down, it's the pattern of use that typically comes with offering a service like this. At the time, it wasn't my primary focus, just a one off, "What would happen if I did this?" type of experiment.
Yes, I knew that there could be abuse, but I didn't know how the abuse would come. As I said, I learned, it cost me very little to do.
> What insight does that give?
For one, how do you maintain a service that actually has traffic. At the time I had very little experience with mass amounts of users. You can build personal websites all day long and still never know what it is like to handle high levels of traffic.
Additionally, given the type of content I received on the service, how could I handle the patterns of use better and encourage the sharing I wanted from users? Given the type of content I got very clear patterns developed that if I wanted to expand I could have.
> Surely you knew there is at least one bad guy using the internets before the experiment?
Yea, there are people with ill intent on the internet and they are constantly attempting to break into my servers as we speak. Why would I use that as a reason to not offer something online? This reason alone, shouldn't be a deterrent.
Did you require accounts? Otherwise it could in theory be one guy I guess since the service was anonymous (however, unlikely, of course).
I ran a Tor exit node once. However I pulled out once I realized what kind of traffic I could be relaying. I guess it is a similar learning experience.
I never understood why people single out Tor for this logic. Obviously Comcast and Verizon are doing the same thing; even the Tor traffic itself traverses their networks. Half the internet is on Cloudflare and it's not just the good half. If you build a technology like TLS or ssh or BitLocker, some of the people who use it will be bad. As is the case with web browsers and RAM and hammers.
The proportion of disreputable things on Tor might be higher, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind. And the proportion of dissidents trying not to be killed by their own government and Ukrainians trying not to be killed by Russians is higher too.
> I never understood why people single out Tor for this logic.
Because the other examples you mention, are corporations with lawyers. They (usually) won’t get a random police raid, and even if, it’d not be as potentially disastrous as it would be for a random person.
Tor exit nodes don't usually get a random police raid either.
But in any event that seems like more of an argument for not running one at your house than for having some moral objection in this case but not to any of those corporations transferring the same content.
But it isn't about the laws, or why isn't that a problem for Cloudflare or Comcast? It's about police departments doing what they ought not to do out of incompetence or a desire to harass innocent people who inconvenience them without violating any laws. Which they could just as easily be doing because of Napoleon syndrome or lobbyist pressure from the RIAA.
But then what difference does the content make? It's not like they don't still put on their ridiculous assault garb or steal your stuff when they want to unjustifiably grief you over a third party's violation of some copyright law.
Some people just need to execute on an idea to learn. I don't quite get the pessimistic comments here. I don't really blame anonfiles for trying. It certainly provided a lot of experience and certainly opened their eyes on how difficult it is to offer a service like this. This experience will help them to build something better in the future even if the next thing they build has nothing to do with distributing files for anonymous users.