3 ms·
This is a nice technology, but if it is really supposed to protect you from a serious thread, you first need to define, who your adversary is and how strong are
by greyman 13y ago
This is a nice technology, but if it is really supposed to protect you from a serious thread, you first need to define, who your adversary is and how strong are his capabilities.
For example, if your adversary is some big national agency, you are chatting this way, but both of you don't anonymize yourselves properly, you could just raise suspicion [since most people don't chat encrypted] and more surveillance can be deployed against you.
To sum it up, the technology is good, but if it should be used for more than an exercise, it must be combined with other protection.
- greyman 13y agoHere is the article I read about this issue: http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/03/12/anonymity-is-hard/ http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/03/12/anonymity-is-hard/ "Hiding anomalous activity is hard, but vitally important. The problem with many security systems based purely on secrecy is that their usage is itself anomalous. It singles out and attracts attention to the users. If the adversary doesn’t know who those users are initially, they can cross correlate real world data with the suspicious activity and narrow their focus to real people."
- XorNot 13y agoThis is how I use it. It's always there, it's always encrypted, so nothing about my behavior will ever appear to change based on my IM traffic.