2 ms·
If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging. If you're a journalist who wants to receive a message from a tot
by dfabulich 8y ago
If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging.
If you're a journalist who wants to receive a message from a total stranger, then you'd have to accept a contact request from a that stranger. Spammers can then deny the journalist access to anonymous requests by spamming them with anonymous requests.
The journalist could try to keep their contact ID a secret, but then anonymous sources would have no idea how to contact the journalist.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago>If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging. as mentioned you can use other anonymous channels before you switch to another one such as ricochet. the point isn't to establish authenticity before moving to anonymity but to add a layer of protection that allows you to decide on the rendezvous point and further increase plausible deniability
- gye 8y agoTerminology is the single biggest problem here: "Anonymous communication" in CS does NOT mean you do not reveal your identity to the person you are communicating with. It means you stay anonymous from the network perspective: No third party learns with whom you are communicating, and everything you reveal to your communication partner becomes an explicit attribute: Your "identity"/name/nickname, but also your location.