3 ms·

> Unfortunately, the protocols that enable truly traffic–analysis-resistant messaging (I believe the Pynchon Gate[1] is currently the best-of-breed) tend to hav

> Unfortunately, the protocols that enable truly traffic–analysis-resistant messaging (I believe the Pynchon Gate[1] is currently the best-of-breed) tend to have increased latency and consume greatly-increased bandwidth. One recent project that validates this is from ACM SOSP'15 titled "Vuvuzela: scalable private messaging resistant to traffic analysis"[1] (open-access URL): > Vuvuzela has a linear cost in the number of clients, and experiments show that it can achieve a throughput of 68,000 messages per second for 1 million users with a 37-second end-to-end latency on commodity servers. > Vuvuzela works by routing user messages through a chain of servers, as shown in Figure 1, where each of the servers adds cover traffic to mask the communication patterns of users. Similar to the P2P project Bitmessage[2] where clients receive and forward traffic not related to themselves. There were some comments on HN discussing FreeNet and how it similarly forwards traffic unrelated to an individual client, but which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. [1] http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N93273 http://dl.acm.org/authorize?N93273 [2] https://www.bitmessage.org/ https://www.bitmessage.org/

wyager 10y ago
> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?
- kodablah 10y ago
  No, not just for using it that I am aware of. Just meaning that pure anonymity on Freenet is not the absolute best and they suggest trusted peers only. Traffic analysis (among other things) is a hard problem to solve without introducing noise and requiring large bandwidth. I think what the parent was saying was that [1] is possible is unfortunate (without making any statements supporting the criminals of course). 1 - http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3885239-predators-police-online-struggle http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3885239-p...
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  >> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. > Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source? Hm, I admit fault, hastily writing the above reply. I do not have sources for actual convictions, so what I wrote is not validated. s/has led to/may risk/ Source[1] that I read prior to my comment, which is under the thread[2] "Suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives". The discussion was along the lines of, if you have encrypted data, and the state "knows" it has illegal content, your not decrypting it makes you liable for it. Thus the extrapolation to use of Freenet, which forwards encrypted content from others, and is heavily littered with CP[3], according to HN commenters. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590880 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081364
  - lkjhgfdsa57 10y ago
    Redacted case notes from a Freeneter acting as an expert witness on a case: https://asksteved.com/freenet-case/case-redacted.pdf https://asksteved.com/freenet-case/case-redacted.pdf

wyager 10y ago

> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?

kodablah 10y ago
No, not just for using it that I am aware of. Just meaning that pure anonymity on Freenet is not the absolute best and they suggest trusted peers only. Traffic analysis (among other things) is a hard problem to solve without introducing noise and requiring large bandwidth. I think what the parent was saying was that [1] is possible is unfortunate (without making any statements supporting the criminals of course). 1 - http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3885239-predators-police-online-struggle http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/3885239-p...
eatbitseveryday 10y ago
>> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. > Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source? Hm, I admit fault, hastily writing the above reply. I do not have sources for actual convictions, so what I wrote is not validated. s/has led to/may risk/ Source[1] that I read prior to my comment, which is under the thread[2] "Suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives". The discussion was along the lines of, if you have encrypted data, and the state "knows" it has illegal content, your not decrypting it makes you liable for it. Thus the extrapolation to use of Freenet, which forwards encrypted content from others, and is heavily littered with CP[3], according to HN commenters. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590880 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081364
- lkjhgfdsa57 10y ago
  Redacted case notes from a Freeneter acting as an expert witness on a case: https://asksteved.com/freenet-case/case-redacted.pdf https://asksteved.com/freenet-case/case-redacted.pdf