4 ms·

I don't really understand the point of this project or similar efforts like securedrop, while understanding their motivation just fine. moving information from

by tribby 8y ago

I don't really understand the point of this project or similar efforts like securedrop, while understanding their motivation just fine. moving information from point A to point B is a very, very small part of the whistleblowing process, and it's already solved by other projects that are not specific to whistleblowing. trusting the recipient of sensitive information to use it well is a much more difficult problem, and it can't be solved by software. if reality winner had used the intercept's securedrop instance to transmit her information, it clearly wouldn't have prevented them from mishandling it.

crtasm 8y ago
I'm not sure what projects you're thinking of; just moving the info is easy, making it fairly foolproof for a non-techie source to avoid leaving a datatrail while sending infomation+having a dialogue with you is hard.
- tribby 8y ago
  ricochet is a metadata-free chat app with file transfers - it has been audited and uses onion routing in a novel way.
  - crtasm 8y ago
    It's explicitly presented as experimental software, personally I'd put more trust in Tor browser.
    - tribby 8y ago
      well, don't use either if you're a whistleblower up against an advanced adversary, unless you really have to - that will put you into a very small population for analysis. attacks on tor are, increasingly, attacks on tor browser[1], so I'm not sure I understand your logic there. ricochet has nothing to do with the web, it is not a browser, it just uses a tor process for routing -- tor browser presents a gigantic attack surface that the tor process itself does not. FWIW, there was an issue or PR on github at some point after the ricochet audit about removing the "experimental" warning, I could be misremembering a different conversation but I think the author just wasn't comfortable telling people that using software for this sort of thing isn't inherently high-risk. 1. https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/03/29/alfin.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/03/29/alfin.pdf
      - crtasm 8y ago
        Get more people to use both so they become less unusual seems like a better plan :-) If you're only connecting to a newspaper's secure drop instance on a .onion the risk of running into malicious code seems low but I do agree that leakers need more than just Tor browser, so let's add whonix to that. Richochet does sound good and I'll try it at some point.
antpls 8y ago
> trusting the recipient of sensitive information to use it well is a much more difficult Just curious, why is that even in the process? If you want to spread information, would you not distribute it to as many people as possible? Why do you have to trust the recipient?
- tribby 8y ago
  ethics and time constraints. whistleblowing and radical transparency aren't the same thing; every whistleblower has a different reason for doing so and spreading all available information is just one possible desired outcome. one of the reasons snowden sent his information to journalists was to remove his own biases from the process -- he wanted journalists to help go through it all, determine what was in the public interest, what could be unnecessarily damaging, etc. he wouldn't have had time to do that himself before being caught. this is in stark contrast to documents found on wikileaks for example that contain social security numbers and other sensitive information completely unrelated to the thing the whistle is being blown on.
  - antpls 8y ago
    > one of the reasons snowden sent his information to journalists was to remove his own biases to be part of the process -- he wanted journalists to help go through it all, determine what was in the public interest, what could be unnecessarily damaging, etc. Now, you introduced biases from the journalists, which is arguably not better. Journalists could be influenced or controled by states or other parties, and then surely control a part of public opinion. (See the scandal with the Tesla employee who sent data to a reporter from Business Insider, and that reporter is then accused of being systematically biased against Tesla) > this is in stark contrast to documents found on wikileaks for example that contain social security numbers and other sensitive information completely unrelated to the thing the whistle is being blown on. That's a better argument to me.
    - tribby 8y ago
      > Now, you introduced biases from the journalists, which is arguably not better. Journalists could be influenced or controled by states or other parties, and then surely control a part of public opinion. sure, but he significantly reduced that risk by going to a number of journalists working for different organizations in different countries, creating a disincentive for any single publisher to become known as the one that publishes misinformation. I agree there's a stronger argument against radical transparency than there is in favor of intermediaries, but whistleblowing is realistically never going to be a scenario in which the circumstance or timing is perfect... going to journalists is a good solution, not a magic one.

by tribby 8y ago

crtasm 8y ago

I'm not sure what projects you're thinking of; just moving the info is easy, making it fairly foolproof for a non-techie source to avoid leaving a datatrail while sending infomation+having a dialogue with you is hard.

tribby 8y ago
ricochet is a metadata-free chat app with file transfers - it has been audited and uses onion routing in a novel way.
- crtasm 8y ago
  It's explicitly presented as experimental software, personally I'd put more trust in Tor browser.
  - tribby 8y ago
    well, don't use either if you're a whistleblower up against an advanced adversary, unless you really have to - that will put you into a very small population for analysis. attacks on tor are, increasingly, attacks on tor browser[1], so I'm not sure I understand your logic there. ricochet has nothing to do with the web, it is not a browser, it just uses a tor process for routing -- tor browser presents a gigantic attack surface that the tor process itself does not. FWIW, there was an issue or PR on github at some point after the ricochet audit about removing the "experimental" warning, I could be misremembering a different conversation but I think the author just wasn't comfortable telling people that using software for this sort of thing isn't inherently high-risk. 1. https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/03/29/alfin.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/03/29/alfin.pdf
    - crtasm 8y ago
      Get more people to use both so they become less unusual seems like a better plan :-) If you're only connecting to a newspaper's secure drop instance on a .onion the risk of running into malicious code seems low but I do agree that leakers need more than just Tor browser, so let's add whonix to that. Richochet does sound good and I'll try it at some point.

antpls 8y ago

> trusting the recipient of sensitive information to use it well is a much more difficult Just curious, why is that even in the process? If you want to spread information, would you not distribute it to as many people as possible? Why do you have to trust the recipient?

tribby 8y ago
ethics and time constraints. whistleblowing and radical transparency aren't the same thing; every whistleblower has a different reason for doing so and spreading all available information is just one possible desired outcome. one of the reasons snowden sent his information to journalists was to remove his own biases from the process -- he wanted journalists to help go through it all, determine what was in the public interest, what could be unnecessarily damaging, etc. he wouldn't have had time to do that himself before being caught. this is in stark contrast to documents found on wikileaks for example that contain social security numbers and other sensitive information completely unrelated to the thing the whistle is being blown on.
- antpls 8y ago
  > one of the reasons snowden sent his information to journalists was to remove his own biases to be part of the process -- he wanted journalists to help go through it all, determine what was in the public interest, what could be unnecessarily damaging, etc. Now, you introduced biases from the journalists, which is arguably not better. Journalists could be influenced or controled by states or other parties, and then surely control a part of public opinion. (See the scandal with the Tesla employee who sent data to a reporter from Business Insider, and that reporter is then accused of being systematically biased against Tesla) > this is in stark contrast to documents found on wikileaks for example that contain social security numbers and other sensitive information completely unrelated to the thing the whistle is being blown on. That's a better argument to me.
  - tribby 8y ago
    > Now, you introduced biases from the journalists, which is arguably not better. Journalists could be influenced or controled by states or other parties, and then surely control a part of public opinion. sure, but he significantly reduced that risk by going to a number of journalists working for different organizations in different countries, creating a disincentive for any single publisher to become known as the one that publishes misinformation. I agree there's a stronger argument against radical transparency than there is in favor of intermediaries, but whistleblowing is realistically never going to be a scenario in which the circumstance or timing is perfect... going to journalists is a good solution, not a magic one.