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/
