5 ms·

Yes this works in fiction novels, in real life it usually doesn't work. I could list the reasons why, but show me a case where it actually worked and we can tal

by x5n1 11y ago

Yes this works in fiction novels, in real life it usually doesn't work. I could list the reasons why, but show me a case where it actually worked and we can talk further. One big hurdle is that there are too many flaws in complex systems, and you have to mess up just once and that includes flaws in your technology for them to get whatever they are after. Perfection does not exist in reality. Using any sort of excessive technology makes you stand out as a target that's in need to introspection. All complexity has costs associated with it, to set up all of this is time consuming and expensive. etc. etc.

wyager 11y ago
>show me a case where it actually worked and we can talk further. You mean like how people can anonymously buy drugs on the internet? It's working fine. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be.
- mirimir 11y ago
  There's no "anonymously" there. Maybe buyers use Bitcoins, and maybe they've mixed them well enough to hide the money trail. But for the most part, they provide meatspace mail addresses. To sellers who truly are anonymous. Who may be LEA. Who may ship illegal drugs at homeopathic dilution, and SWAT right after delivery.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    Governments are concerned with entrepreneurs engaged through the net. Because governments are made up of former dealer/slangers who went "legit" liek bushes and others of that ilk
  - wyager 11y ago
    And yet, despite all these worst-case scenarios you've outlined, it works great most of the time (from what I hear).
    - mirimir 11y ago
      It didn't work out so well for Curtis Green.[0] > Starting in April 2012, a DEA undercover agent in Maryland (the UC), began communicating with Ulbricht about selling illegal drugs on Silk Road. That agent was one of several assigned to the Baltimore Silk Road Task Force. The UC claimed to be a smuggler who specialized in moving substantial quantities of illegal drugs. In December 2012, Ulbricht set out to find a drug dealer on Silk Road who could purchase large quantities of drugs from the UC and directed his administrators, including Green, to assist. Green assisted the UC to establish contact with a buyer, who was an established seller of drugs on Silk Road (the Vendor). The UC and the Vendor negotiated a deal for one kilogram of cocaine for approximately $27,000 in Bitcoin, a digital currency that has no association with a national government, is difficult to track, and easy to move online. > Without the knowledge of either Ulbricht or the UC, Green agreed to act as a middle-man for the Vendor and take delivery of drugs. As a result, the Vendor provided Green’s address to the UC as the place to which the cocaine was to be delivered. On January 17, 2013, an undercover U.S. Postal Inspector delivered the cocaine [very highly cut] to Green at his residence. Shortly after Green accepted delivery of the cocaine, federal agents with the HSI, DEA, U.S. Postal Inspectors and the U.S. Secret Service executed a search warrant at Green’s residence and recovered the kilogram of cocaine. U.S. Secret Service agents also conducted a forensic examination of Green’s computers and digital media seized during the search. [0] http://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/administrator-silk-road-website-and-drug-vendor-plead-guilty-drug-conspiracy http://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/administrator-silk-road-we...
      - wyager 11y ago
        Yes, there are specific instances where it does not work. What is your point? The same goes for buying drugs on the street. It seems to work quite well most of the time.
mirimir 11y ago
Many people use VPN services for privacy, to get around geo-blocking, hide torrenting and so on. Where I live, at least 25% of Internet users do so. Tor use is less common. And so I access Tor through VPN services. And don't obviously stand out more than 25% of my neighbors. But yes, it's complicated. I've been writing how-to guides for years, and people's eyes do tend to glaze. Still, I'm sure that it could be automated. Smartphones are the huge problem. They're intentionally designed for tracking and surveillance. And they are the primary channel for Internet access in many places. So it does seem pretty hopeless :(
hackeraccount 11y ago
It doesn't have to work in the sense of stopping an invasion of privacy. Name your governmental - or even non-governmental - organization will always be able to read any individual. The question is one of effort. In an optimal world Government would have some set of checks on who it monitors - there would be judges, warrants and probable cause. As things stand that's seeming less and less the case. In a slightly less better world the effort to monitor would be great enough that governments would be forced to pick and choose just who they're monitoring. Ideally that'd be picking bad people.
hackeraccount 11y ago
It doesn't have to work in the sense of stopping an invasion of privacy. Name your governmental - or even non-governmental - organization will always be able to read any individual. The question is one of effort. In an optimal world Government would have some set of checks on who it monitors - there would be judges, warrants and probable cause. As things stand that's seeming less and less the case. In a slightly less better world the effort to monitor would be great enough that governments would be forced to pick and choose just who they're monitoring. Ideally that'd be picking bad people.
andrewflnr 11y ago
If you can prove that it worked, it didn't actually work. Unless someone boasts about it later, all anyone will ever see of a successful play for plausible deniability is the denial. As far as you can tell, their machine really was a victim of a botnet.

by x5n1 11y ago

wyager 11y ago

>show me a case where it actually worked and we can talk further. You mean like how people can anonymously buy drugs on the internet? It's working fine. It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be.

mirimir 11y ago
There's no "anonymously" there. Maybe buyers use Bitcoins, and maybe they've mixed them well enough to hide the money trail. But for the most part, they provide meatspace mail addresses. To sellers who truly are anonymous. Who may be LEA. Who may ship illegal drugs at homeopathic dilution, and SWAT right after delivery.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  Governments are concerned with entrepreneurs engaged through the net. Because governments are made up of former dealer/slangers who went "legit" liek bushes and others of that ilk
- wyager 11y ago
  And yet, despite all these worst-case scenarios you've outlined, it works great most of the time (from what I hear).
  - mirimir 11y ago
    It didn't work out so well for Curtis Green.[0] > Starting in April 2012, a DEA undercover agent in Maryland (the UC), began communicating with Ulbricht about selling illegal drugs on Silk Road. That agent was one of several assigned to the Baltimore Silk Road Task Force. The UC claimed to be a smuggler who specialized in moving substantial quantities of illegal drugs. In December 2012, Ulbricht set out to find a drug dealer on Silk Road who could purchase large quantities of drugs from the UC and directed his administrators, including Green, to assist. Green assisted the UC to establish contact with a buyer, who was an established seller of drugs on Silk Road (the Vendor). The UC and the Vendor negotiated a deal for one kilogram of cocaine for approximately $27,000 in Bitcoin, a digital currency that has no association with a national government, is difficult to track, and easy to move online. > Without the knowledge of either Ulbricht or the UC, Green agreed to act as a middle-man for the Vendor and take delivery of drugs. As a result, the Vendor provided Green’s address to the UC as the place to which the cocaine was to be delivered. On January 17, 2013, an undercover U.S. Postal Inspector delivered the cocaine [very highly cut] to Green at his residence. Shortly after Green accepted delivery of the cocaine, federal agents with the HSI, DEA, U.S. Postal Inspectors and the U.S. Secret Service executed a search warrant at Green’s residence and recovered the kilogram of cocaine. U.S. Secret Service agents also conducted a forensic examination of Green’s computers and digital media seized during the search. [0] http://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/administrator-silk-road-website-and-drug-vendor-plead-guilty-drug-conspiracy http://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/administrator-silk-road-we...
    - wyager 11y ago
      Yes, there are specific instances where it does not work. What is your point? The same goes for buying drugs on the street. It seems to work quite well most of the time.

mirimir 11y ago

Many people use VPN services for privacy, to get around geo-blocking, hide torrenting and so on. Where I live, at least 25% of Internet users do so. Tor use is less common. And so I access Tor through VPN services. And don't obviously stand out more than 25% of my neighbors. But yes, it's complicated. I've been writing how-to guides for years, and people's eyes do tend to glaze. Still, I'm sure that it could be automated. Smartphones are the huge problem. They're intentionally designed for tracking and surveillance. And they are the primary channel for Internet access in many places. So it does seem pretty hopeless :(

hackeraccount 11y ago

It doesn't have to work in the sense of stopping an invasion of privacy. Name your governmental - or even non-governmental - organization will always be able to read any individual. The question is one of effort. In an optimal world Government would have some set of checks on who it monitors - there would be judges, warrants and probable cause. As things stand that's seeming less and less the case. In a slightly less better world the effort to monitor would be great enough that governments would be forced to pick and choose just who they're monitoring. Ideally that'd be picking bad people.

hackeraccount 11y ago

andrewflnr 11y ago

If you can prove that it worked, it didn't actually work. Unless someone boasts about it later, all anyone will ever see of a successful play for plausible deniability is the denial. As far as you can tell, their machine really was a victim of a botnet.