On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:25:12PM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > On 2012-06-20 at 14:55:52 -0400, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > We have to look at what we're on about here: The ability to have > > little servers is one thing. But the ability to convey information > > outside of prying eyes is another. > > What's there to stop your average three-letter-agency from > walking around mayor malls with a malicious phone that works > as a node, but forwards any data it has passed on to the same > secret quantum computer they use to read any other encrypted > message on the internet?
You can just run an anonymizing layer on top of that. A single network probe or even a few of them won't be of much use in a large mesh. > I hope I'm joking about the quantum computer, but I doubt > that a system that requires connecting to the devices of random > strangers, expecially one that is desinged to work with short > lived connections, is going to be any more "outside of prying > eyes" than the current internet. Unlike the current Internet (don't know what the internet is supposed to be) you cannot instrument everything to do traffic analysis. That's a considerable advantage of end user owned and operated infrastructure. _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
