3 ms·

If you also want to have your meta data encrypted (which you have not with Email): Just use http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/ http://retroshare.sourceforge.ne

If you also want to have your meta data encrypted (which you have not with Email): Just use http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/ http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/ for your entire communication needs (it's not only file sharing!). EDIT: Ok, maybe I was too naive thinking NSA & Co do not have their people on HN...

gjm11 13y ago
You know, when you spam HN with an endless stream of advertisements for something and get downvoted, there are simpler explanations available than that HN is under the thumb of government goons who are out to get you.
- kimlelly 13y ago
  Disinformation campaigns, for example.
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    Or we just get tired of the same spam on every article.
6d0debc071 13y ago
Talking about encrypting metadata doesn't really make a whole bunch of sense - at least not by itself. The metadata is, more or less, who you're sending the thing to. It's like saying you encrypted the address on an envelope - you know? The postman's not going to take that anywhere if it's got gibberish printed on the front of the envelope. If I'm your ISP, then I can read who you're sending it too right off of your packets, and if that information's not there, then I can't send the packets on - the message doesn't go anywhere. You can, perhaps, obfuscate it with onion routing - provided a significant percentage of the network hasn't been compromised - but .... Well, I don't think Onion routing is really secure in the long-term because: A ) ISPs taken as a group will have a look-down/shoot-down sort of perspective on the whole thing. If I know who you talk to and all the people who you talk to talk to (and so on) then I can follow you through the system fairly easily. You can insert dummy packets to try to obfuscate the message but - 1. I don't think Tor or any of the other mainstream progs currently do that. It's a bandwidth-expensive move. 2. Anything that contacts a person of interest can be prioritised for and even with some low level obfuscation in place, you'll appear on a list of a few tens or hundreds of people who might have sent something to them, which can then be combined with other data, (i.e. you still give up a great many bits of information even if you attempt to obfuscate at a low level.) B ) I think that it probably makes sense as a cost exercise for nation states to become significant parts of the network which will give them a decent chance of having the entire message chain through to your endpoint. I think you really need the system to pass on messages through the endpoint with a semi-random number of jumps to make things worthwhile and for the person you're sending to to be part of that network and pass on regular coms for a significant time before anyone tries to contact them with something non-regular. Someone asked me on here, a while back, how many terrorists I wanted to talk to. And it really is that sort of problem, I think.

gjm11 13y ago

You know, when you spam HN with an endless stream of advertisements for something and get downvoted, there are simpler explanations available than that HN is under the thumb of government goons who are out to get you.

kimlelly 13y ago
Disinformation campaigns, for example.
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  Or we just get tired of the same spam on every article.

6d0debc071 13y ago

Talking about encrypting metadata doesn't really make a whole bunch of sense - at least not by itself. The metadata is, more or less, who you're sending the thing to. It's like saying you encrypted the address on an envelope - you know? The postman's not going to take that anywhere if it's got gibberish printed on the front of the envelope. If I'm your ISP, then I can read who you're sending it too right off of your packets, and if that information's not there, then I can't send the packets on - the message doesn't go anywhere. You can, perhaps, obfuscate it with onion routing - provided a significant percentage of the network hasn't been compromised - but .... Well, I don't think Onion routing is really secure in the long-term because: A ) ISPs taken as a group will have a look-down/shoot-down sort of perspective on the whole thing. If I know who you talk to and all the people who you talk to talk to (and so on) then I can follow you through the system fairly easily. You can insert dummy packets to try to obfuscate the message but - 1. I don't think Tor or any of the other mainstream progs currently do that. It's a bandwidth-expensive move. 2. Anything that contacts a person of interest can be prioritised for and even with some low level obfuscation in place, you'll appear on a list of a few tens or hundreds of people who might have sent something to them, which can then be combined with other data, (i.e. you still give up a great many bits of information even if you attempt to obfuscate at a low level.) B ) I think that it probably makes sense as a cost exercise for nation states to become significant parts of the network which will give them a decent chance of having the entire message chain through to your endpoint. I think you really need the system to pass on messages through the endpoint with a semi-random number of jumps to make things worthwhile and for the person you're sending to to be part of that network and pass on regular coms for a significant time before anyone tries to contact them with something non-regular. Someone asked me on here, a while back, how many terrorists I wanted to talk to. And it really is that sort of problem, I think.