On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 20:42:37 -0700 Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 08/07/2018 06:14 PM, juan wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:49:54 -0700 > > Mirimir <miri...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>> for other stuff...do you have to ask? What sort of system do you think > >>> should be used for coordinating 'criminal' activity, instead of streaming > >>> super full SHD video for retards? > >> > >> That's the question. > > > > And the answer is : some sort of 'high latency' mixing network. And > > interestingly enough such a network doesn't seem to exist, although it > > seems to me it would require less resources than something like tor. And > > nobody seems to be worried about having or not having that kind of > > network, which strikes me as odd... > > Well, as I'm sure you know, high-latency mix networks -- Cypherpunk and > Mixmaster remailers.[0] -- predate Tor. Right. In other words, the state of anonymous comms in the last 20 years has gone a long way....BACKWARDS. > That's how I used the original > cypherpunks list, way back when. A few years ago, I played with them a > little. I got QuickSilver Lite running in Wine.[1] Basically, all email > goes to alt.anonymous.messages, you download everything, and then your > client finds stuff that you can decrypt. Yes, that's a 'brute force' technique that works. Steve Kinney mentioned it as well. > Some resources were (are?) > available as .onion services. I probably have notes somewhere, if you're > interested. > > I'm not sure why that all died. It _was_ bloody complicated, even with > QuickSilver Lite. Well, a few guesses : 1) not enough people thought it was important enough because surveillance wasn't as bad as it is today 2) ...so the tradeoff security/usability didn't seem worthwhile 3) those systems were displaced by worse, 'fast' solutions provided by the US military. > Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have > scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get > pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix > networks. That's how they work as far as I understand them. So saying it's a problem really misses the point. > > Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. Yep. And the 'culture' behind it. Allow retards to stream super ultra SHD videos. But I wouldn't like to blame the victims too much, so of course the problem is the assholes at the top who dictate how 'technology' is developed. > Although I recall > seeing a crude hack that pulled stuff from alt.anonymous.messages, and > massaged it into a web page. > > >> I guess that you say that there is none, and we > >> should all just organize our local cells. > > > > What I was trying to say is that, if the use case is 'criminal > > activity', then using a 'low latency' network like tor which provides > > centralized 'hidden' services is a not a good idea. It's more like a recipe > > for disaster. > > Well, if you exclude low-latency networks, you're pretty much left with > nothing to use. THat is not true. Although I don't know how robust it is, I think freenet comes closer to being a mix network of sorts, and it's a decentralized storage by design. See? Unlike the garbage produced by the pentagon nazis in which 'hidden' services are a hack, freenet was designed with censorship resistance as a key property. But another point is, if at the moment there only are fast, low quality networks, then what's needed is...something else. You keep repeating we only have tor - why? My answer is that you are just a tor propagandist which in turns makes you as US military propagandist. That's what the EVIDENCE points to. > But even so, people who want anonymity, some of them > doing illegal stuff, _will_ end up using Tor. So why not help them use > it more safely? Oh, but I do. Whenver I have the chance, I tell darm markets operators to not post their contact information on facebook. > > 0) https://remailer.paranoici.org/clist.html > 1) https://www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/