Slashdot Mirror

This sounds like anomos: http://anomos.info/

I was researching this weekend, I can't seem to find out if the project is still alive. It looked well designed in 2010, and I'm not sure if it's using the Tor network (bad), or just the Tor protocol for its own network( good).

It's different enough from both. How do i know? I wrote a thesis on this in 2004 including a prototype implementation from which this is an executive summary (if not a full on plagiarism)

This sounds like anomos: http://anomos.info/

I was researching this weekend, I can't seem to find out if the project is still alive. It looked well designed in 2010, and I'm not sure if it's using the Tor network (bad), or just the Tor protocol for its own network( good).

Anomos' Key Features:
--------------------
1)UNLIKE BITTORRENT, NO PEERS DIRECTLY UPLOAD/DOWNLOAD TO OTHER PEERS.
Every peer relays to other peers just like Tor. This makes it more difficult for the prying eyes.
2)The more peers connecting to the same tracker, the stronger the anonymity for everyone.
3)runs on windows, mac os x, and linux
4)Based on the original python-based bittorrent sources
5)Tweaked to be tor-friendly

For more information:
http://anomos.info/

Anomos torrent sites are on their way. Seek and you shall find.

Slashdot sure has changed. Second only to Linux being better than MS, privacy was valued highly by the average slashdot visitor. It seems complacency is setting in and it's just to easy to dismiss privacy.

If we slowly give away our privacy, it will soon become the norm to have none. And on a small scale this won't bother most of the narrow minded. Joe Schmoe may not care that google maintains a database on all his activity, because he doesn't think he has anything to hide. Without even realizing it he may even have given up his privacy regarding for whom he will vote. The scary thing is, some of the people posting here don't seem to realize the ramifications of such a privacy violation. Take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which acknowledges the importance of anonymous voting.

It doesn't matter if the consequences of google maintaining a database for Joe Schmoe are small now. The very fact that it exists and the CEO of the company in charge of the company responsible doesn't value your privacy, purely based off the fact that "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide". This is BS. There exists perfectly legitimate reasons to have privacy without any wrong having taken place. Because "wrong" is subject to change. What's wrong to one person may not be "wrong" to another, and vice versa.

Other points of interest:

Why do I need anonymity?

So far in pre-internet stone age, all means of information collection have been anonymous:
* If you bought a book in a bookshop, you did not have to leave your name and address, not even if you may have been interested in the most controversial material.
* When you read an article in a newspaper, nobody but you knew what and when you read it.
* When you listened to radio, only you knew when, where and how long you listened to their program.
* When you watched TV, you personally were looking that show and only you and maybe your family knew .

What is different in internet times?
* The bookshop knows what you’re reading.
* The radio station knows you start to listen to John Doe’s program from usually 6:00pm until 7:30pm and from 6am to 7am.
* The TV Station knows your interests better than you, and tries to sell you things accordingly.
* The newspaper knows the articles you read and how long they pulled your attention.
* Google knows you read that article and began investigation more about your findings.
* Your ISP knows everything.
* Your government knows what websites you visit, reads your email and listens to your phonecalls.
We don’t like this and neither should you.

Um, really? Your website makes it sound like you're doing something very similar, but routing through strangers rather than friends:

After being sent, packets are routed through a number of intermediary nodes before reaching their final destination. These intermediary nodes can only confirm that their neighbors are participating in the network, they cannot confirm that their neighbors are sharing or merely relaying information, nor can they determine what is being shared.

Why is routing through strangers better than the "slow Friend to Friend system" used by OneSwarm?

I'm a lead dev on a similar project called Anomos, which provides anonymous and encrypted BitTorrent without requiring the slow Friend To Friend system that this uses. OneSwarm is a cool project, but we have some advantages over this (although I'm sure they have advantages over us as well.) We're a funded project as well. If you're interested in this type of thing, you might wanna take a look at our project as well. (Also check out i2pSnark!) Ultimately (perhaps by the end of this summer), I'd like to see all of these approaches under a single roof.