4 ms·

This sort of thing is why I’ve always been hopeful for truly anonymous communication like that proposed by Freenet, I2P or Tor… as of now, though, none have end

This sort of thing is why I’ve always been hopeful for truly anonymous communication like that proposed by Freenet, I2P or Tor… as of now, though, none have ended up being practical, in spite of decades of work.

jacquesm 7y ago
Tor is not truly anonymous.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
  I guess you'd have to define truly anonymous nothing is IMO. it's a function of raising the cost so it becomes too prohibitive for an adversary to track you. the only way to be "truly" anonymous online is not to go online (or to be truly anonymous irl is to stop being alive).
- cyphar 7y ago
  Tor is as close as we might get. Onion services (especially v3) are arguably even more anonymous than browsing clear-web sites because there isn't a clear exit node. Tools like Ricochet and OnionShare allow for ethereal onion services that can open the door to some interesting usecases.
- dontbenebby 7y ago
  > Tor is not truly anonymous. No low latency system will be anonymous in the face of a global passive adversary. Tor does not claim to protect against a global passive adversary.
  - zrm 7y ago
    > No low latency system will be anonymous in the face of a global passive adversary. That isn't true. The trivial system is the one where everyone has a broadcast transmitter and transmits constantly even when there isn't a real message. The implementation of that over the internet is full mesh, which is impractical, but it's a spectrum trading off anonymity for bandwidth and there are potentially interesting points along that spectrum between Tor and full mesh, where they use more bandwidth but then a global passive adversary can't learn anything. Something like virtual circuit switching could potentially work for example.
jhayward 7y ago
This is a hopelessly naive view of the outcome of truly anonymous, untraceable, unaccountable communication. We should all realize that there are much worse outcomes than the current society we live in, and lots of them increase dramatically in likelihood when you remove the ability of society to protect itself from people who intend to create catastrophe. Truly anonymous communication is a catastrophe-enabler.
- knodi123 7y ago
  > We should all realize that there are much worse outcomes than the current society we live in, "Could be worse" is not a compelling argument. > lots of them increase dramatically in likelihood when you remove the ability of society to protect itself from people who intend to create catastrophe. I'm curious what you could possibly be thinking of, because to me it seems obvious that the exact opposite is true. This idea that all communication must be "accountable" to a central authority is very modern, and very very dystopian. If bad guys can conspire in secret, I consider that an acceptable sacrifice in the name of liberty. Just like ensuring there is no surveillance inside of bathrooms (but what if terrorists assemble their bombs there!).
  - jhayward 7y ago
    > I consider that an acceptable sacrifice in the name of liberty It is remarkable how often zealots are eager to sacrifice the lives and well-being of others to achieve their 'liberty'. Liberty isn't enhanced by enhancing the ability those who wish to harm us to do so. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason. Untraceable communication is a tremendous force multiplier for crime, terrorism, and foreign political de-stabilization operations. That you want to increase the effectiveness of those things is very scary.
    - knodi123 7y ago
      > It is remarkable how often zealots are eager to sacrifice the lives and well-being of others to achieve their 'liberty'. I also find it remarkable how often people are willing to sacrifice any amount of liberty in the name of preserving life. Would you be willing to accept a police state where AI-controlled body cameras are required to be worn by all people at all times? That would certainly deter a lot of crime. Of course it's an obviously ridiculous extreme, but it serves to illustrate that you don't really believe that in a tradeoff between liberty and safety, we should always decide in favor of safety. All we're arguing about is where to draw the line. > Untraceable communication is a tremendous force multiplier for crime, terrorism, and foreign political de-stabilization operations. And it is only very recently that our government was even capable of beginning to block it. Untraceable communication has been the norm for all of human history. We survived. You act like law enforcement is powerless without it, but of course that's not the case. > That you want to increase the effectiveness of those things is very scary. That you insist on reducing me to a caricature in order to demonize me is very childish.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> none have ended up being practical, in spite of decades of work You are implicitly blaming the projects and the developers, while the rest of the world spends billions on developing software and networks without having any regard for privacy.

jacquesm 7y ago

Tor is not truly anonymous.

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
I guess you'd have to define truly anonymous nothing is IMO. it's a function of raising the cost so it becomes too prohibitive for an adversary to track you. the only way to be "truly" anonymous online is not to go online (or to be truly anonymous irl is to stop being alive).
cyphar 7y ago
Tor is as close as we might get. Onion services (especially v3) are arguably even more anonymous than browsing clear-web sites because there isn't a clear exit node. Tools like Ricochet and OnionShare allow for ethereal onion services that can open the door to some interesting usecases.
dontbenebby 7y ago
> Tor is not truly anonymous. No low latency system will be anonymous in the face of a global passive adversary. Tor does not claim to protect against a global passive adversary.
- zrm 7y ago
  > No low latency system will be anonymous in the face of a global passive adversary. That isn't true. The trivial system is the one where everyone has a broadcast transmitter and transmits constantly even when there isn't a real message. The implementation of that over the internet is full mesh, which is impractical, but it's a spectrum trading off anonymity for bandwidth and there are potentially interesting points along that spectrum between Tor and full mesh, where they use more bandwidth but then a global passive adversary can't learn anything. Something like virtual circuit switching could potentially work for example.

jhayward 7y ago

This is a hopelessly naive view of the outcome of truly anonymous, untraceable, unaccountable communication. We should all realize that there are much worse outcomes than the current society we live in, and lots of them increase dramatically in likelihood when you remove the ability of society to protect itself from people who intend to create catastrophe. Truly anonymous communication is a catastrophe-enabler.

knodi123 7y ago
> We should all realize that there are much worse outcomes than the current society we live in, "Could be worse" is not a compelling argument. > lots of them increase dramatically in likelihood when you remove the ability of society to protect itself from people who intend to create catastrophe. I'm curious what you could possibly be thinking of, because to me it seems obvious that the exact opposite is true. This idea that all communication must be "accountable" to a central authority is very modern, and very very dystopian. If bad guys can conspire in secret, I consider that an acceptable sacrifice in the name of liberty. Just like ensuring there is no surveillance inside of bathrooms (but what if terrorists assemble their bombs there!).
- jhayward 7y ago
  > I consider that an acceptable sacrifice in the name of liberty It is remarkable how often zealots are eager to sacrifice the lives and well-being of others to achieve their 'liberty'. Liberty isn't enhanced by enhancing the ability those who wish to harm us to do so. We have laws and law enforcement for a reason. Untraceable communication is a tremendous force multiplier for crime, terrorism, and foreign political de-stabilization operations. That you want to increase the effectiveness of those things is very scary.
  - knodi123 7y ago
    > It is remarkable how often zealots are eager to sacrifice the lives and well-being of others to achieve their 'liberty'. I also find it remarkable how often people are willing to sacrifice any amount of liberty in the name of preserving life. Would you be willing to accept a police state where AI-controlled body cameras are required to be worn by all people at all times? That would certainly deter a lot of crime. Of course it's an obviously ridiculous extreme, but it serves to illustrate that you don't really believe that in a tradeoff between liberty and safety, we should always decide in favor of safety. All we're arguing about is where to draw the line. > Untraceable communication is a tremendous force multiplier for crime, terrorism, and foreign political de-stabilization operations. And it is only very recently that our government was even capable of beginning to block it. Untraceable communication has been the norm for all of human history. We survived. You act like law enforcement is powerless without it, but of course that's not the case. > That you want to increase the effectiveness of those things is very scary. That you insist on reducing me to a caricature in order to demonize me is very childish.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

> none have ended up being practical, in spite of decades of work You are implicitly blaming the projects and the developers, while the rest of the world spends billions on developing software and networks without having any regard for privacy.