Slashdot Mirror

http://www.invisiblog.com/

You submit content via the Mixmaster remailer system so that your ISP's records don't show what you were saying or even who you were saying it to. No visible feature for adding comments.

Dunno if they're really alive -- the last activity mentioned on their front page was last October.

http://invisiblog.com/ - sign your blog and send it via MixMaster to the website where it gets automatically published if the signature matches

You're forgetting that those pictures of child pornography are generally produced for profit by the perpretrators themselves.

Bullshit. Ever been on USENET? How about FreeNet? Here, have some kiddy porn, free of charge. (disclaimer: nothing to actually see - it's GPGed and I have no idea whether it actually is what I think it is or where you would get a key to decrypt it)

Even if this stuff wasn't available for free, I have difficulty believing that child molesters are doing it for the money rather than love of molesting children.

Invisiblog lets you post blog entries via the anonymous remailer network.

Yes. According to Riane Eisler, this is because the US has a "blade" culture and Europe has a "Chalice" culture.

Those who do not believe me (or those who are inclined to believe the MS shills who will respond saying that I am wrong), should read EFFs analysis of TCPA where they give a simple way that the chip could be changed to allow all uses except remote attestation intended to force people to use certain operating systems and enforce DRM over the user.

And see this rebuttal to the EFF report.

Further see this blog entry by the same author on good uses of Trusted Computing all of which rely on the supposedly evil Remote Attestation feature. EFF's proposal to allow people to override their systems' attestations would ensure that none of these applications would be possible.

The truth is that TC along with Remote Attestation is a new feature set for your computer which allows new ways for people to cooperate online. Some people oppose this because they don't believe that others should be allowed to cooperate in ways they don't approve of. They don't want you to be able to credibly commit to obeying certain rules in processing data. But they have no right to interfere in your private decision making processes.

Those who do not believe me (or those who are inclined to believe the MS shills who will respond saying that I am wrong), should read EFFs analysis of TCPA where they give a simple way that the chip could be changed to allow all uses except remote attestation intended to force people to use certain operating systems and enforce DRM over the user.

And see this rebuttal to the EFF report.

Further see this blog entry by the same author on good uses of Trusted Computing all of which rely on the supposedly evil Remote Attestation feature. EFF's proposal to allow people to override their systems' attestations would ensure that none of these applications would be possible.

The truth is that TC along with Remote Attestation is a new feature set for your computer which allows new ways for people to cooperate online. Some people oppose this because they don't believe that others should be allowed to cooperate in ways they don't approve of. They don't want you to be able to credibly commit to obeying certain rules in processing data. But they have no right to interfere in your private decision making processes.

There was a good paper by Ross Anderson, a well known British security expert, that compared the security of open source vs closed source systems (sorry, paper is PDF). He set up a mathematical model for how quickly bugs would be found and fixed by the maintainers and testers, versus being found and exploited by attackers. His conclusion was that the two models would both be about equally successful.

A recent posting on the Unlimited Freedom blog took another look at Anderson's analysis and came up with some different results that were not as favorable. But either of these articles seem more convincing than this challenge by Russell Jones.

There is an analysis on the Unlimited Freedom blog of how Trusted Computing (aka TCPA/Palladium) could solve the problems with Internet voting. The idea is that the voting application could be protected from tampering from other software or the user himself. The secure I/O and sealed storage help as well. Once Trusted Computing technology is widespread then it may be time to take another look at voting on the net.

There is an analysis on the Unlimited Freedom blog of how Trusted Computing (aka TCPA/Palladium) could solve the problems with Internet voting. The idea is that the voting application could be protected from tampering from other software or the user himself. The secure I/O and sealed storage help as well. Once Trusted Computing technology is widespread then it may be time to take another look at voting on the net.

http://invisiblog.com/ - uses MixMaster/CypherPunk anonymous email to post your blog, use a GPG key to sign it to prove it's you posting.

"Two people can keep a secret, but only if one of them doesn't know it" (i.e. your identity)

I wrote another critique of the monoculture paper on my blog. This monoculture business is a flawed analogy. It makes sense for crops, because if one crop gets infected it doesn't shoot firebombs into all the other crops and burn them to the ground. However, infections in a widespread OS can be just as harmful to systems based on other operating systems, as the recent DDOS attacks which took down some of the anti-spam servers showed.

This would probably be a good time to mention the real blogging website:

http://www.invisiblog.com/

Mixmaster / cypherpunk remailers make your blogs anonymous, while still listing them in order by person. Not even the website knows the IP address where a blog came from.

Yes, I am aware that news and blogs aren't supposed to be a discussion board. I am also of the opinion, however, that the right to free speech come with the responsibility of fair speech, and this, IMHO, would help to link these two online. The real shortcoming I see here is that the proposal does not affect corporations and groups like the RIAA (or the EFF, KKK, etc.). So in it current form, it puts an unfair burden on the individual. It would be a lot more acceptable if this would apply across the board.

In the meantime, if this is passed, people who don't want to be forced to bear the burden of reply can take the AC's way out and blog here.

So, it would seem that we need a peer-to-peer service that is built with the following attributes:

-completely anonymous users, file transfers, hosts, etc.
-reliable and stable structure
-decentralized topology
-efficient data management
-and complete deniability (I didn't host that file, or I didn't download that file, as member's cant control content on the network)

We do. We have several.
- FreeNet, and similar projects (Publius, FreeHaven) for distributing anonymous files
- The Invisible IRC Project for anonymous, deniable instant messaging
- InvisiBlog for blogging
- MixMaster and Hushmail for email
- Anonymizer and Peek-a-booty for browsing

Anyone care to add to this list? I've only put the ones that immediately spring to mind, but I know there are more distributed anonymous deniable chaffed encrypted file-share programs that I've not tried.

http://invisiblog.com/info/faq

8. Mixmaster is slow and not always reliable. Messages typically take 12 to 24 hours to arrive. Sometimes they never arrive at all.