3 ms·
> It seems to me that speaking to a large number of people anonymously is not possible with > any of the existing tools, Signal included While it's still at
by pdx 10y ago
> It seems to me that speaking to a large number of people anonymously is not possible with
> any of the existing tools, Signal included
While it's still at the testnet stage, I have very high hopes for Maidsafe's SAFEnet. This will allow a completely anonymous internet, providing both users and publishers complete anonymity. Upon release of the actual network, it will live in the wild, just like bitcoin, with no company in control of it. Maidsafe's business model is to be one of many developers that will consult to companies who want to migrate their data storage onto the network. The network itself will be controlled by nobody.
It's peer to peer, but there are intermediate nodes which isolate content storage from those who view it, so neither IP addresses of storage nodes nor IP addresses of content consumers can be determined. Since there is no centralization, there's nobody for state actors to attack, legally or by force. All traffic is encrypted and even the ports are randomized, to avoid state firewalls from determining what the traffic is and blocking it.
I think it's our best hope to distribute large amounts of data to the world and avoid the censorship that many countries already have and that even those of us in the west see looming upon us.
You can learn more about it at https://safenetwork.org/ https://safenetwork.org/ and https://safenetwork.org/documentation/ https://safenetwork.org/documentation/ and https://safenetforum.org/ https://safenetforum.org/
- revscat 10y agoData distribution is next to meaningless if there is not the accompanying power to affect political change.
- pdx 10y agoIn a democracy, dissemination of information to the voters can theoretically affect political change. In countries that are not democracies, I'm uncertain what to do with your complaint. Would you dismiss giving oppressed people access to literature, news, entertainment, or technical and scientific information, on the premise that the information is unlikely to allow them to affect political change? I don't believe that premise is true, but even if it were, their lives are still made better, which means it's far from meaningless.
- revscat 10y agoRecent events have disproven the cypherpunk-era belief that freely available, secure communications will lead to a better (read: more rational) world. I don't dismiss the desire to give access. I think its utility has been naively overstated; these same tools can be, and have been, used by old guard oligarchs to maintain and extend their political and economic power.
- pdx 10y agoI agree that bad actors and state actors will also use this technology. Every time I read a podesta email I am reminded that such hacker induced government transparency will be gone, when they all move to the platform. But governments do a pretty good job of keeping their secrets now, so in the end, I think this will balance the scales towards private citizens.