Slashdot Mirror
Is Rodi BitTorrent's Replacement?
tilleyrw writes "From ZDNet Blogs: 'Rodi is a small-client P2P application, written in Java, that improves on BitTorrent by allowing both content searches and full anonymity. It's released under the General Public License (GNU). Even your IP address can be hidden using Rodi through a process called "bouncing." That is, if A wants a file from B, they get C to agree to stand-in on the exchange. B gets C's IP address, not A's. Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C. Rodi can also be used from behind corporate firewalls and LANs using Network Address Translation (NATs), something most home gateways have.' "
Now I can anonymously download all of those legal Linux distributions, and non-licensed music I've been holding off on, and nobody will be the wiser, mwahahaha!
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
First Post?
Is this actually a new protocol or does it extend BitTorrent?
Because if the latter then I'm not sure the word "replacement" makes all that much sense.
I'm sure the extension will be useful for some people. But I for one know my BitTorrent usage patterns do not create a need for either anonymity or searching.
"Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C. "
I doubt very seriously it can spoof a full three way TCP handshake.
Probably not. Most people don't care enough about anonymity to switch over from something that they already like.
__
Laugh Daily funny free videos
I'd hate to be C.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
B still knows A and C's IP addresses, sure its obsfucated, but certainly not annonymous. As long as you are using an IP, there is no such thing as annonymity.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
...has Roddy McDowell started a P2P network?
Will it install Malware, adware, nagware like Kazaa? I still stick with Unet groups.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
Rodi, Mr Glickman's not going to like this
Technoli
So,
Someone can download illegal and immoral content and the server will have a record of my IP?
I don't think so.
Even if it is well known that my IP wasn't the final destination.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
I think Bit Torrent is here to stay. The most useful new features from Rodi (like IP anonimity) will eventually be implemented in Bit Torrent.
Corporate lawyers sharpen their pencils and put an offer in on that second Mercedes on which they've been holding off. In all seriousness, this will be the way of things. As soon as the corporations think they've but the kibosh on P2P, another, better format rears its head and the cycle begins again. The MPAA and RIAA will just have to acknowledge that P2P is here to stay and figure out a way to use it to their advantage.
Java...nuff said.
I am trolling
Sad to see you go, you did great work guys! Until next time....
does it use a whole new file distrobution method, or does it use existing bittorrent files? is it just an enhancement/improvement to existing bittorrent protocol or is it an entirely new p2p file distrobution method?
thanks
Other anonymous filesharing systems currently avaliable/in development
MUTE
ANTS p2p
GNUNet
and not specifically filesharing, but the I2P anonymity layer allows for anonymous bittorrent amongst other things.
Of these, I've found I2P is excellent, although requires a little time investment in setup, and MUTE seems quite promising - speeds are reasonable for an anonymous p2p system, but the user base is currently tiny. I've not had too much luck with ANTS, and haven't tried GNUNet
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
So you can steal IP with abandon because your IP is hidden. If your IP is hidden, any IP that you up/download cannot be traced back to you. IP is as IP does.
Will the anonymity be a trade-off for speed ?
That, and is the anonymity real, at the socket level ?
And no, i didn't RTFA. Hit me with a stick.
I'm curious... would 'C' be seen as a Common Carrier in this case, much like ISPs ?
If not... could they be 'liable' for any of the more shady/outright illicit material passing through them from B to A as they've willingly and knowingly become part of this Rodi thing ?
( Not to be confused with thousands of hacked boxes through which spam/viruses/etc. get sent, as I doubt most owners of those boxes aren't willingly and knowingly part of a spam/botnet )
All the pro-DRM folks will be fighting to be C.
Man-in-the-middle attacks, comming soon to a Rodi near YOU!
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Sorry, the correct link is here
The government will rename the country U.C.A (United Corporations of America)... okay, maybe that'll be one of the last things they'll do.
But they'll simply haul the person in who's using the masquerader's address and charge them as an accomplice to theft.
This seems to be a great app.. but, I am surprised why not many developers are using SWT to improve the GUI. Not to flamebait, but I have used SWT and Swing on Windows/Linux....and prefer SWT. If the developers only target the geek community, I dont see any day to day user trying the app... BTW, on a side note, Azureus (http://azureus.sourceforge.net/) is probably the greatest SWT app written, ever! ;-)
Keep your trap shut about the hidden resources! Sure everybody knows about them, but not everybody knows about them.
I did RTFA, but it left me a little confused. Actually a lot confused.
Does C opt-in to being complicit in a transfer between B and someone? Does C get to know the details of the transfer? If so, is there anyway of C knowing whether or not what he/she is doing is legal? At least with bittorrent I can be mindful that I am only serving up bits I'm allowed to serve.
Every few weeks news, another modified version of BitTorrent comes along which promises better search or less tracking. From the standpoint of a person operating a legal BitTorrent site, all of the things that these guys are stating as a feature, I would definitely not want. I most certainly want to track my users, run up statistics and use all of that to better inform my users of how well certain files are doing. I know many are just interested in making new anonymous p2p apps for warez, but their unending focus on it can't be helping the stigma against such p2p apps. Many will say "but! but! the opressed political activist in China! what about him?!" yeah.. I'm sure the teenage mp3 sharer really cares about that guy with his new anonymous p2p warez sucker.
With Bittorrent, I am actively working on one single file.
This means that the RIAA/MPAA can only ever see that I am sharing one single file.
Compare and contrast with kazaa etc where my entire drive (shared folders) are available.
BT doesn't give anonymity, but it gives limited accountability, they can't prove I was uploading any other files unless they themselves connect to each one of them at the same time I am downloading. Once my client is closed, then bye bye.
liqbase
First, we have the ability to .... uhm ... well, second we can't forget that we can ... uhm ... screw it, is Episode 3 on the network yet??
.. and I am opposed to the draconian ways of which copyright is being enforced today, I have to say that this has very little use other than copyright infringement.
I have a hard time seeing that going through hoops in order to hide your identity while dowloading stuff is going to be necessary for legal downloads so, while regular BitTorrent has many legal uses, this tool does not, making it more likely that providing the tool for download might constitute a crime.
a free software implementation of what skype have already done.
now all that's needed is to port it out of bloody java and also to back-end this code into a VPN.
in this way, you'd be able to hide ANY network traffic, not just VoIP and not just file sharing.
Yeah. It kinda looks like a fruit that's gone goatse.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
No.
Long answer.
Absolutely not.
...is to embrace on-line distribution - even p2p itself!
.RIAA/etc_torrent of "Movie ABC" for $X that could only be used by their client software (iTMS, MusicMatch, etc) to download the music video or movie or what have you, then encrypt it. (This is what Apple does with the iTMS and why DVDJon was able to create another client that buys iTMS tracks but doesn't encrypt them.)
Look at how the iTunes Music Store put a dent in on-line music sharing by providing a better shopping experience and keeping the price low enough that people will choose it over p2p.
Now if the RIAA/etc would recognize the benefits of p2p for distribution of large files, they could benefit from companies like Apple and Napster running storefront trackers. The user would purchase the
The benefits would be an on-line revenue stream, lower costs of network bandwidth because of the torrent, and a way to win favor with the p2p file sharers today.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Not to worry, DHT is enabled by default on the latest version of Azureus. ie. the tracker isn't necessary.
Distributing Java programs is tricky. Adding JNI DLLs makes it trickier. Write Swing and you know the interface is there, for free. You can distribute a jar file with a manifest and nothing else; no path problems, no DLL hell, just double-click the icon (hopefully). Path of least resistance.
I'm not saying Swing is better, just easier to distribute (and more widely known; again, path of least resistance.)
And I'd say the greatest SWT application ever is Eclipse.
1) There is no significant protection here. A and B have to agree on a proxy. All the MPAA/RIAA has to do is a have a list of acceptable intermediate nodes C that are owned by them and not easily traceable to them, and push them out on the network. Now there is end to end encryption, but the MPAA knows who is talking to whom.
Combine this with periodic searches as a client for restricted content, and you've got a list of people offering probable restricted content.
They can even get trickier and start advertising content with filenames that sound right (but of course really just say "you're busted, neener neener"). In this case they act as B, the machine with the content, and they can have a very selective list of intermediate nodes (C) also controlled by them. In short, with a small farm, maybe 30 boxes, the MPAA is right where they are with Kazaa and other P2P applications.
2) There's nothing new here. This is just a stripped down version of anonymous remailers/onion routing, sans encryption.
3) The latency overhead of hopping to a node in between will be significant (as seen with tor), and probably kill the app. Not to mention the assymetric encryption overhead.
In short, it raises the bar a little, and for that is a good thing, but I'm afraid it's not raising the bar enough to make a difference for people who want to download copyrighted content (sorry).
I was of course only hinting at making a possible attempt for a subtle joke.
As others have pointed out, C takes on liability. What do they get in return? Aside from ideological satisfaction and a sense of being 1337 (which may be enough), what would compel anyone to act as C?
Tom Geller
No, it's just down for maintenance. Will be back within a couple of hours.
e re-fr-uppgradering.html
Source: http://pirazine.blogspot.com/2005/06/pirate-bay-n
but "C" kinda gets it in the shorts, doesn't he?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
If the **AA happens to be B, then they still know what A asked for and that C is delivering it to them. Both A and C are screwed.
What they need is to add a random number of hops.
A asks for a file, and a random number of hops (say...0, 1, or 2). Let's say we get 1.
A asks for a file and D has it. We have +1 extra hops. So D sends the file to C who sends it to B who delivers it to A.
All B knows is that A is asking for the file and C is providing it. What B does not know is if A is the original person asking for the file, or a hop node servicing a request, like B and C are. A now has a "proof of doubt". As does C for similar reasons - C is a hop node and doesn't have the file. B has no way to know.
And yes, I know this would be slow as hell. But it would be pretty darn anonymous. That's the price you pay.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Sam
... a beowulf cluster of these.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't Rodi suffer from a Sybil Attack. As in, what if the advisory (i.e RIAA) controls both B and C and hence can determine the IP of host A and which file A is sharing?
Furthermore, wouldn't this be incredible slow and fragile since all traffic is routed through a 3rd party. Every transmission would rely on the both the sender and proxy not disappearing. Plus, how would you do piece-wise parallel downloading like bittorrent does? Would you need to get a 3rd party proxy for every single piece?
Finally, was anyone else disturbed by the fact the author was trying to argue that using UDP (with no congestion control) as a transport layer was a good thing. If this indeed ever becomes popular, router queues would surely suffer.
That one of the biggest BitTorrent trackers in the world, The Pirate Bay has just closed...
It's not C that agrees to stand in the middle, it is A...You know, like in MPAA. The perfect position to prepare the lawsuit.
PS: Yes, I know mixmaster and tor.Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
Yeah, like THAT was useful.
I sure wish that half as much energy were expended in the Linux world writing software that people actually need to use Linux for business as there is in writing software that makes Linux appear to be nothing more than a hacker/pirate platform. I remember in the early days of DOS, when there were probably a fraction as many programmers TOTAL than there are today messing with Linux. We had spreadsheets and word processors galore to choose from. What's wrong with Linux that this isn't happening here? Maybe because there's no vacuum to fill?
Yeah, sure, mod this a troll, but think about it a bit.
He makes a point. While bittorrent has been under fire from the RIAA and the like, many of us (myself included) feel that this is inappropriate. The argument being that Bittorrent is just a way to more easily share files.
Rodi,however, seems to add the ability to conceal your identity. I would have to side with "the man" on this one as this feature does nothing but facilitate illegal file sharing via anonymity.
In a way, it makes it harder to attack Bittorrent. As an analogy, it's legal to own a handgun even though guns can kill, but it's still illegal to put a silencer on that gun.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
The most useful new features from Rodi (like IP anonimity) will eventually be implemented in Bit Torrent.
I'm not sure if Bram Cohen would agree - he made BT to share software, not to pirate music or videos. Adding anonimity to BT is just what the lawyers need to say BT was MADE for copyright infringement.
Eventually, the recording industry will realize that their DRM, lawsuits, and other forms of sharing "prevention" just won't work.
They're going to have to change to a business plan that's different. The online music stores are a good start. More live concerts is another.
CD's are going to finish becoming obsolete in about 30 years as rewritable forms of memory like USB sticks get smaller, contain more, and take over.
They WILL change, or they WILL go out of business.
That's really surprising. I thought they had spoken with lawyers and determined that what they were doing was legal in Sweden. I'll miss the amusing page with their responses to legal threats.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
What does Linux have to do with this story? The program is written in Java, which means it will run anywhere that has a Java virtual machine.
Since you never share more than 10% of a song, you could use "fair use" defense (you can even provide critisism - "this song is good/sucks").
The same P2P client would grab 10% of a song from 10 different people, each of who shares different part of the file...
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I find it kind of sad that even on Slashdot there is the "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide" mentality. I would like to be able to expect privacy even when I'm doing something *legal*.
The expectation of privacy also counts when exercising your freedom from unreasonable search... you have to have an expectation of privacy. It's sad that ours has gotten so eroded that we no longer seem to have one. Our own culture undermines the bill of rights... Good hack on the government's part, but -sigh-
Politics, Culture, Food?
Rodi rules. I am not even bothering with BitTorrent anymore. Rodi is blazing fast(even the beta version), has already a better user interface than most BitTorrent clients, and offers much better anonymity. The Rodi developers did an excellent job.
This would be the first step in the evolution to anonymous p2p, it's a good compromise, and way better than the current method, where everything is done in plain view. If (or more likely, when) the thought police starts attacking this, _then_ we can move to the fully paranoid networks.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
It seems to me that the anoymizing technique used in Roti is essentially the same as that used in MUTE. Would anyone more qualified than I care to make a comparison?
i just want to play go
Who cares if A can hide their identity? B can't.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
It really seems like a good idea, but I'm so fed up with Phishing sites, emails from nowhere, etc, that it seems like allowing all of this anonymous content is being proven a bad idea. The one good thing about IPV6 is that captures your Mac address, although I suppose that could be spoofed somehow..
This is my sig.
With BitTorrent and several similar applications, the application is supposedly justified by legitimate traffic, and this has been a big point against them being closed down in cases from the RIAA and similar corporations.
As the level of privacy is taken up, notch by notch, it's the illicit side of it that seems to be prevailing. I saw a p2p system was used for one of my automatic WoW updates; I don't see any reason why to hide that from the web at large. If I wanted to get distributed file transfers, and those transfers were legal, I'd probably still not mind; who cares?
This ever-increasing secrecy just boosts the idea of the illegality of the majority of the traffic through these systems. Another side of multiple layers of cloaking is that if a worm/virus/etcetc gets distributed, then it's going to be that many times more difficult to track it down and stop the damn people who are doing it.
I'm interested to see why people are so insistent on extra layers of invisibility. I bet a major answer to that is simple privacy, so that people don't see what you do; to that I respond that this is hardly confidential information; no credit card numbers, phone numbers, addresses. Your IP, which everyone with a website sees anyway when you look in.
Why the obsession with needing so much privacy that it's a haven? Noting that havens attract the bad seeds more than the good.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
C is the middle man right? So either way you look at it, C is getting the (possibly copyrighted) data before sending it on to B right? Ok, so the next argument would likely be "But C only gets very little of the data at a time before it is sent to B, and C never actually USES the data, so its all good!" So they C would just get sued as an accomplice or whatever instead of as a copyright violator. Either way, instead of B getting sued, it will be C that gets sued. Great idea.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
In sweden June 1st == april 1st.
It gets worse. If you set yourself up as a C box by running the software, and you know that your machine is being used to commit criminal acts such as piracy, then you and A and B can all be charged together as a conspiracy chain. And it gets even better: in federal court, conspirators are liable for all of the related criminal acts of their co-conspirators. So, if you as C help A and B pirate one mp3, and they use other Cs to pirate 1,000 other mp3s, you can probably all be charged for all 1,001 counts of piracy. Enjoy.
In the case of BitTorrent, you have to actually set up port-forwards for the clients doing downloads. If you're a business and you've got employees needing those ISO downloads, either you put up the port-forwards, or hope someone sets up a Rodi tracker, etc. and have it work automagically for them.
It's not just about anonymity- it's as much about NAT tunneling; something that I would have hoped the BitTorrent author would have given some thought about. For even legal P2P to work, it must account for situations like NAT because it's pretty much the norm, not the exception- and so far, they've not considered that sort of thing in a serious manner until now.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Why not just use TOR???
TOR
The Pirate Bay has been taken down ILLEGALLY by an industry-backed swedish anti-piracy group that calls itself "Antipiratbyran". They do everything to convey the image of an official organization. They violently raided the house of the Pirate Bay crew, stole several computers, and hijacked the website. Do you honestly think the crew would actually put "Antipiratbyron" on their website and apologize?
The Pirate Bay crew is currently taking legal action against Antipiratebyran and we can only hope that there is still justice in Sweden and that the courts can still distinguish between what's legal and what's now.
Yeah, sure, mod this a troll, but think about it a bit.
OK, I've thought about it a bit.
And I've come to the conclusion that people write free software to please themselves.
If you want them to write free software to please you and your views regarding the rightful place of Linux in the business World, then you or somebody else needs to pay them to do so.
It's funny - it didn't take me more than half a second of thought to come to that stunningly obvious conclusion. So I'm wondering why you couldn't have done the same?
I don't consider the IP anonyminity to be the most useful feature (it's nice all the same, but any app could and would stand on it's own without it...)- it's the NAT tunneling. One of the biggest things about BitTorrent that's holding it back is that it requires a lot of work (yes, it IS that) to deal with NAT unless you're completely in charge of all portions of the network until you hit a routable address. Right now, BitTorrent will not work for you if your ISP NATs your access. It only works for those people who happen to have routable addresses- which is dialup and anyone with a fixed routable IP on broadband that has control of thier own NAT firewall. Rodi's claiming that they tunnel through the firewall NAT and allow all potential participants to join in the swarm. Looking at his source code, it looks similar to the stuff they did for STUN that's used with SIP. Not a bad idea, really- and it should be there in BitTorrent (And it should have been there on day one, in my not so humble opinion...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I think the description given for Rodi is somewhat simplified, as for the majority of BT trackers there's a TON of people on them at any given time. So it wouldn't simply be 3 people, but rather that C's IP is bounced around to D and F, and F's IP is bounced to E and M, and M's IP is bounced to A and R, and so on. Even if each person bounced to 2 people, there'd be enough obfuscation to render it useless for logging.
Would C get in trouble for allowing B to use its IP? After all by using Rodi, C automatically allows B to use its IP; therefore, C is a partner to illegal file sharing.
As stated above, this makes them complicit and cooperative in the transfer of the very digital information they seek to control. Any suits for infringement can be met with "you helped out" line before laughing the case out of court.
Really, it sounds like some college student's idea of a cool project. He's blissfully unaware of little things things like information theory and cryptanalysis, and writes off proposed attacks as "oh, well you can just spoof your IP".
Lame.
Seek out appropriate legal advice: I'm not a lawyer, practitioner and do not pretend that I am a legal expert of any kind.
Nope.. its just an joke by the tpb guys.
The server is actually just down for maitinance.
http://pirazine.blogspot.com/
(swedish)
a) As mentioned before, it doesn't protect the sharer, only the person asking for the file. The sharers are the ones the MPAA/RIAA want to go after.
b) The fact that every connection is tunneled through an intermediary will significantly reduce scalability and throughput.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Pirate Bay seems to be dead, dead, dead.... "Today the swedish anti-piracy organisations raided The Pirate Bay and confiscated the computers running the tracker. This probably means the end of The Pirate Bay and we, the crew, apologize for all loss of income caused by our activity over the years." http://tracker.piratbyran.org/ 1) too bad 2) they poked a lot of people in the eye...
I came up with this idea a while back, actually. The general concept is simple, but there are a number of sublties. As one user here suggested, the first obvious improvement is to use multiple hops. However, let's assume (in a rather paranoid fashion) that the *AA is traffic monitoring Joe Leecher, who is downloading a file through a relay chain. The *AA might not be in the chain, but they still know Joe Leecher is download loads, but not uploading much. Ah, he must be pirating! SO, the trick would be to add additional relays AFTER the intended target. Of course, the Joe's position in the chain would have to be random...and could potentially be at the end. This way, Joe Leecher has to upload some, but no matter...he gets the file and nobody's any the wiser. You could even get creative, and have the initial sender fake some download traffic. Now let's assume the *AA gets more involved, and starts inserting sleeper nodes into the network. If they were in a relay chain, they would know that 2 IPs (sender and receiver) in that chain were uploading/downloading illegal files (assuming they WERE illegal files). Thus, 2 users are put in danger, even though they are not the intended recepients anyway. SO, encrypt the transfers, sort of like some remailer chains do. The initial sender somehow (depending on the actual details of the protocol) receives a generated public key of the real receiver. You could even add envelopes, where every node in the chain was party to the encryption/decryption. Thus, only the true sender and receiver would know the content being transferred, and they wouldn't have any way of tracking each other! The next idea would be to extend ALL of this to searches, so even your searches are anonymous/encrypted/relayed. A distributed trust system could also protect against malicious middle nodes changing data to impede the network. Anyway, let me know if you like these ideas. I've held off on implementing this until I get better at C[++]. If you're a 1337 coder and want to help, by all means, let me know!
1) Purchase an 802.11 card that allows the users to alter MAC address and an external antenna. = $45
2) Drive around random suburban neighborhoods looking for open access points. Be sure to change your MAC address at random intervals. Netstumbler will make this easier. = 20 hours of your time
3) When you are downloading those Linux ISOs choose a new access point and MAC address every evening. You will need a van to ensure privacy and comfort. = $20,000
Total = $20,045
Time Investment = 20 hours + downloading time
I think I will stick to purchasing my software and music.
Guys, please take it easy developing P2P. The RIAA & FBI are still having trouble tracing old skool kazaa and bittorrent terrorists, a you already have a successor? That ain't fair!
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
Order up another 55gal. drum of Mylanta and send it to the RIAA.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Instead of trying to spoof legitimate traffic on p2p networks in order to throw off the **AA and seeing as how they are starting to use UDP instead of TCP, I'm surprised nobody's come up with a trojan/virus that generates fake data for legitimate torrents and fire them off to ranges of ip addresses at random.
I'd suspect the **AA would have a much tougher time rationalizing their witchhunts if even only 10% of network traffic related to bittorrent was actually false, both in terms of content and in terms of ip addresses.
Given random sector packets of random data content, those packets would either show up as discarded data (packets received for which the client didn't request) or would fail the cluster checksum and would eventually get tossed.
Not only would the **AA need to log the ip address of where it came from but also log the contents of the packets to compare it against the original torrent checksums to determine if it is legitimate traffic. Even if it was legitimate, given that it could theoretically be requested by a bot which then proceed to dole it out to ip addresses at random, the automation of the process would make it harder to say that the traffic was user initiated at all.
If enough machines had these bots, legally, the **AA would be walking on very thin ice since, in order to determine if that person really does have copyrighted material, they would have to examine the computer, but the computer might never have had it in the first place, nor would that person even have wanted it or taken any steps to acquire it. It would be a serious breach of privacy and it would make it tougher for them to justify the beating of the wardrums.
Just sayin'...
Oh, and slashdot is run by idiots. Thanks for another captcha. I'm *still* human.
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
It's called openvpn. Check it out.
Not so much Bit Torrent as Bit Dribble then knowing Java VMs amazing data throughput abilities.
The knowledge that you're saying F-U to the **AA?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sure, there are some privacy advocates who (perhaps justifiably) don't want there to be any way to trace what they download (but there are better ways to do this, I think).. but the main use of hiding your IP address in a P2P application is to facilitate piracy.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Rodi can also be used from behind corporate firewalls and LANs using Network Address Translation (NATs), something most home gateways have
"Hello, Security? Hi, I need to have NATting set up for my workstation. What? Oh, just a P2P filesharing app. Yeah, it's pretty cool, it's fairly anonymous, and it can spoof its IP, and it.... Hello?"
if you let your machine be used to serve something from someone elses hard drive you are not anonymous. So the riaa will sue you, rather then the actual user.
Sounds smart (not).
Actualy, true anonymity can be acheved by forging UDP packets (invalid from address).
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
to get people to ditch torrent... had it been backwards compatible and able to use existing torrent files then it would probably take off fast... but having its own file format (.rodi files) may condemn it like .ogg vs .mp3... everyone knows what a .torrent and an .mp3 are... but a .rodi and an .ogg???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
... Not a better P2P app. This is pointless and likely will slow down the download of legal ISOs, such as Redhat, Debian, etc.
Keep in mind that RIAA is killing multi level pricing of software, and pushing people to open/free software.
Admittedly development language is largely a choice based on preference, but why java? Didn't azureus teach anyone anything? Once that gets on a torrent for more than a couple of hours my system starts perfoming like it's getting ready to die.
Java (in my experience and opinion) just isn't really suited for large scale, multi connection applications. It's nice for the one off, fill in this form, play this game, do this task stuff, but long running processes need something that's a bit more lean and economical with the resources.
The world according to SComps
If people want to use an anonymous distribution system for illegal downloading, let them. That would reinforce the idea that BitTorrent is for legitimate transfers.
so now the RIAA can sue 3 people for the same mp3 download. What an innovation. I am sure the RIAA will love it.
Java is cross-platform. Linux / Windows / doesn't matter - it will work anywhere the Java runtime is ported.
I don't see how this piece of software has anything to do with Linux.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I haven't read how this softare works yet, but I can explain a bit about how a very similar piece of software called Mute works.
The paths between the sender and receiver are of variable length, between 2 and 5 links. If you are C and you receive a query for a file from A, you cannot be sure that A was the start of the chain. More often than not, A was simply forwarding a query from someone else. There is no easy way to see where the query originates from, even if you own a relatively large number of the nodes on the network.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
The law will provide that C can get out of trouble by coughing up B's address.
Anyone who offers an anonymous P2P service is offering snake oil.
Sometimes you just want to be able to go to Baskin & Robbins and order a couple of scoops of "Cherries Jubilee" without getting spam from the Cherry Growers of America or some such bullshit. Not having your name, address, and buying habits sold to everyone under the sun is a good thing and the same general purpose is served here.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
No, it doesn't. But the vast, vast majority of people using a tool like this are doing so because it shields their illegal activities.
Now, as a general principle, I don't like restricting people's behaviour without a very good reason. More specifically, I don't believe in automatically banning things that have legitimate uses just because they also have illegitimate ones.
However, I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility, always. In exchange for the freedom to use these tools for their beneficial purposes, you take on the responsibility of not abusing that trust.
Sadly, not everyone can be trusted to act responsibly; if they could, we wouldn't need laws and police and armies. What's needed is a balance where those authorities don't interfere with someone exercising their freedoms responsibly, but can interfere when the trust is abused.
And that is why, on balance, complete anonymity on the Internet is not a good idea. I have no problem with being anonymous for routine use, but if you can't even be identified in the face of overwhelming evidence of a crime, backed by an order from the lawful authorities, something's wrong. At that point, for everyone who could genuinely take advantage of true anonymity to make a contribution to society -- and I'm sure these people do exist -- how many spammers, virus writers, phishers, fraudsters, copyright violators, organised criminals, paedophiles, and even (really, for once) terrorists are we letting get away with it?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
(1) It's "Build a man a fire..." that starts the quote. Your quote doesn't make sense.
(2) You have a great point that the broadcast infrasturucture would suffer - but there are ways to combat this:
- by distributing purchased content, royalties from these purchases would offset the cost of royalties to broadcast the same content. This would lower operational costs for broadcasters
- purchased could be limited (to start) with "re-runs". There are plenty of cable channels now that just show re-runs. If those went off the air because of the iTunes Video Store, I for one would not shed a tear
- purchased content could certainly have ads in it and those ads would probably sell far higher than a one time prime time ad because they would be forever archived with the media.
- the player could have ads built in. The movie is encoded with "ad" flags at certain points and when that point is reached, there is a 30 second pause and the player displays a randomly selected ad from the server.
Sure, not all these solutions are ideal, but broadcast TV hasn't really ever changed - even the broadcast-to-cable-to-satelitte switches have been evolutionary. This is a chance for the industry to evolve.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
All wrong!! Anonymity is not about supporting piracy. It is about something very fundamentally important and much more valuable than all pirated copyrighted works put together: Free Speech. Today it is impossible to state some opinions and political views without running into major trouble. In some countries the local authorities still give you a bullet for saying something against them. Freenet (freenet.sf.net) is a P2P / web anonymity program that has been around for a while. It is very slow and crappy, but it has been in use a while and if you look at the sites there you will find that a huge number of them express opinions and views who could not be shared and stated on a non-anonymous system. The ability to express oneself without risking prosecution is what anonymous peer to peer systems are all about.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
A better analogy: Compare it to a taxi driver that was paid to drive them away, but did not know that they were bank-robbers.
You are not required to check that the receiver can legally copy some information before forwarding it on, just as a taxi driver does not have to check that the people he is driving did not just rob a bank.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Be C.
Now if I'm C, and A and B are trading kiddie porn, I can get arrested for facilitation!
Bittorrent already works through the tor network and such. Mostly limited nowadays since it was hogging all the bandwidth tho.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
thers no way in hell im downloading anything if thers the slimmest chance of them finding me
http://overstated.net/media/RIAA_PSA.mpg
be afraid be very afraid
Are you stuck in a recursive time loop circa 1996?
- sigs are for wimps.
Sounds bullet proof!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Here is the output which goes into a loop:
p t3 68) r ces.java:268)
CLI started
Project is under active development
Failed to bind socket port 53
Std output redirected
Std err redirected
Look thread started
Publisher thread started
RxDaemon thread started
Download is initialized
Run script file:/Users/tomcoady/Desktop/rodi_0/rodiCore.scri
java.net.BindException: Permission denied
at java.net.PlainDatagramSocketImpl.bind(Native Method)
at java.net.DatagramSocket.bind(DatagramSocket.java:
at java.net.DatagramSocket.(DatagramSocket.java:210)
at rodi.Resources.openSocket(Resources.java:30)
at rodi.Resources$SocketRxParams.restartSocket(Resou
at rodi.util.SocketRx.run(SocketRx.java:98)
Failed to bind socket port 53
Internet Anonymity is a perpetual motion device.
It just doesn't exist. Once in awhile, someone thinks it does, but then after a closer look (or by the time it's actually implemented), the anonymity no longer exists.
I expect that given recent P2P legal battles, this will be even more likely to prove as being another blighted failure.
It's analogous to all those other falsehoods, that people still claim to hang onto and that marketting folks use for selling:
Unbreakable encryption
100% Security
Completely confidential
Completely Anonymous
If you TCP handshake with a 'trusted' third party on a P2P network, it can be logged. Who actually trusts the people they P2P with anway?!?!?
Call me back when there's a GUI interface instead of strictly CLI.
That green slime had it coming.
There are plenty of good reasons for IP Anonimity; "freenets" for distribution of material banned by an oppressive government comes to mind as a useful, non-copyright infringing use.
There are plenty of times that you could want anonymity, where you could be breaking the law of the land, but not be infringing on corporate-sponsored rights.
It only matters if the the redirectors get "common carrier" status legally. If they don't then it doesn't matter if the end person is hidden, a bunch of people get screwed.
This is really only helpful in mildly oppressive regimes. Say if France bans "Mein Kompf"*, and you want to read you could download it through rodi and avoid being caught with contraband Nazi stuff. but just being a rodi client in say China, would be enough to single you out.
*I have no idea if France actually censors "Mein Kompf", but would be not much of a strecth if they actually did. If you prefer replace Anarchist Cookbook and FBI if you prefer.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
sounds like a concept I suggested back in december when there was a slashdot article about decentralizing bitorrent.
9 80087
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131518&cid=10
I have a serious question about all of these anonymous dark-net systems. In each case that I know of they hide IP addresses by bouncing content around from node to node so that a spectator sniffing the traffic at a particular node would not be able to determine if the traffic coming to and from that node is actually destined for it or some other node. There is then "plausible deniability" if someone tries to pin a particular upload or download on you.... you can claim some other party was just relaying through your node.
My question is this: is this fundamentally a REAL defense? Couldn't a case be made that the participants in the network are ALL participating in a conspiracy to knowingly fascilitate piracy / child porn / terrorism / whatever? I've so far not managed to find any Chinese dissident content on Freenet, so I'm not sure to what extent that line of defense would do any good.
Keep in mind that the government doesn't even need to make a GOOD case that they can "win". Just making the case at all means they get to confiscate all the computer equipment and run up legal expenses for the dark-net participants in such a way that most would probably settle just to get their lives back to normal.
The RIAA has gone after individuals who share content by tracking content available from specific IP addresses. They then determine who the person is behind that IP address and then sue them. Or sue someone and then find out who they are suing, as the case may be.
The MPAA is handling it quite differently. They are going after the sites who are hosting the URL to the copyrighted content (a Bittorrent file is, after all, just a resource locator). By shutting down the URL, the location of the content is not as easily found.
The difference is important here because you have to decide which problem you are trying to solve: hiding who is hosting the link to the content or hiding who is hosting the content itself. The MPAA approach is quite interesting because, with only one exception that I know of in a jurisdiction in the USA, having a link to the content produces no inherent liability.
I think the whole technical approach is a bit sketchy, from trackerless torrents to anonymous routing of data. Instead, why not focus on specifically taking advantage of the legal defenses?
For example, the DMCA explicitly includes a takedown notification defense. The copyright holder is actually required to inform you that the content is copyrighted, thereby giving you a complete defense of hosting copyrighted content. If every P2P client had an integrated takedown notice option, it seems a very good defense. Say you are in Kazaa, you do a search and find someone hosting a song that has license restrictions (e.g. you cannot copy it without explicit permission of the copyright holder). If you choose to download it, you get a popup that has three options: 1) Inform host that this is copyrighted material, 2) Certify that content is not restricted and download it, thereby agreeing that it is not copyrighted to the best of your knowledge. If option #1 is selected, then the content is disabled and the content host has to reenable access to it.
Perhaps that would end up in the bullshit list of excuses, but it would require the downloader to utilize a takedown notice. If the hoster keeps reenabling access, then liability could be established.
The reason why I think this could be feasible is because of the Napster case. In Napster, the judge explicitly required the RIAA to inform Napster of specific content that was copyrighted and being infringed. Why is an individual less able to utilize this defense?
Rodi is a small-client P2P application, written in Java...
No.
It's shit like this that gives us a bad name. May as well post an article about how to make bombs, blow up buildings, kill women and children. Stupid !
Slashbot morons.
I2P has been mentioned a few times on Slashdot. This, however, is bad; it's still in heavy development, and currently can't handle large network loads due to its inefficient network coding. This will change soon, but at the moment, I2P has to maintain a connection with everyone else in the network; already, some machines running older operating systems can't use the network because it's so congested.
Additionally, the I2P developers prefer to test things on a small, controlled base rather than with a massive and difficult-to-manage network. If a bunch of Slashbots decide to download I2P and then just let it sit on their computers without upgrading it, development will slow down and become a lot more difficult.
In short, no matter how cool I2P is, stop bloody spreading it around until it's ready./P
The 'C' node is analagous to the "man-in-the-middle" in the cryptanalysis attack on public key algorithms. How can you trust 'C'? What if 'C' is really the RIAA, MPAA, or one of their agents or minions? The problem is that 'C' knows the REAL IP addresses of both 'A' and 'B' and thus can log them for later analysis or forward them to any number of third parties. Detection could be made more difficult by involving additional middlemen in the hopes that at least some of them are not an agents, but this does not address the root of the problem since there could be entire networks of middle men agents who are all cooperating to log the activities of 'A' and 'B'.
Dude, Mein Kampf, spell it right. I wouldn't have brought it up, but you misspelled it twice.
...when sound long A as in RIAA & MPAA.
F that, this is getting too complicated, there are way too many protocols. Gimme ZModem with error correction and we're all set.
I don't like the idea of this. Unless they can come up with a more efficent way of making you anonymous, I see Rodi as nothing but a tool that will get other people busted for downloading files that they never really did. Your typical judge and jury will not understand (or believe) how Rodi makes one "anonymous."
I pay for a lot of things. I don't do drugs. And I don't cheat on my wife.
However. That is good for me. It does not impress me when someone says how honest or loyal or religious they are. Good for them if they are. But no big deal. To me, being good is its own reward.
Why am I making this point? The whole point of our Democracy is government subject to the will of the people. We give people gun permits and laws and ask them to not to harm others. For most people, they do the right thing. We ask people not to steal and most people do not. So, it is an honor system. The government has power and control so long as it doesn't abuse it (well, at least that was the attempt with how the founding fathers structured the government).
When people are anonymous, the honor system breaks down. Hence P2P. Anonymous people do and say things they otherwise wouldn't. But is that wrong? Current news shows that people who suck up and kick down, no matter how unscrupulous, get promoted as long as they support the status quo. Whistle blowers and people of conscience, who go out on the limb, whether it be for investigative journalism or to speak out about corruption, are fired or worse.
Then we have to worry about the coming storm of thought police. How soon until we get public humiliation again (stockades) or tattoo the letter "A" on people's forehead. I've heard worse suggestions on the Neal Bortz show.
But P2P is a check and a balance on corporate and morality control. Anyone with any clue (a rhetorical arguement, but I don't wish to argue that the world is round) can see that corporations have the upper hand with creating protective laws and influencing law enforcement. The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting profits--somehow forgotten in our brainwashed heads is the notion of utility and what government is for. Could you imagine the FBI following a shoplifter home? Or, more accurately, imprisoning someone for making a copy of a dress design on their own sewing machine? In the first place, copyright infringement is not theft--it is loss of revenue. And using laws and police to ensure a profit margin is taking tax payer money. Additionally, we already pay a "tax" on all sorts of media because it "could" be used for copyright infringement. So how can anyone be stealing a product we all paid for?
So, P2P works to force companies to provide utility. If they can't be more convenient or useful as a company--what Utility do they provide a citizen of the United States? Copyright and patent law was originally intended to provide some compensation in order to reward innovators. Except for a few circumstances, these days it does the reverse and is merely a treasure to reward those who own--not innovators. I doubt one in a hundred even knows what "the consumer is sovereign" means. But not working for the status quo doesn't pay in mass media, so you won't here it mentioned.
P2P has more of an effect on "control" than it does on "profit". The fact that X mp3s have been downloaded does not translate to X mp3s would be bought. In fact, it is argueable that music sales might decrease, without downloadable works.
I'd much rather live in a country that allows people to do wrong. Holland is a better place ot live than Saudi Arabia. Seems that so many people want good things controlled and legislated, they don't realize that they don't get to decide WHAT is controlled and legislated--only the biggest pig at the trough wins.
So I'm in favor of anything that allows for the anonymous transfer of information. I may not avail myself of it, but it also allows for an outlet when corporations and governments overreach. If someone could get a CD for $1 or a movie for $3 on iTunes, do you think this would even be a discussion?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Through IP Spoofing A can even hide their identity from C.
Now would this work on machines that dont have raw-socket support?
"In short, no matter how cool I2P is, stop bloody spreading it around until it's ready."
As you can see people are eager to have unrestricted free(dom) speech and free(dom) information. Freenet dropped the ball by screwing up forward progress for two years and others are taking up the slack.
I2P has made incredible (and forward only, no backsteps) progress lately but if it doesn't want to be left behind then it needs to move even faster. I also think time is running out since, with DRM being put into Intel chips as one example, I'm not sure if we are keeping up with the powers that be.
I also suggest that anonymous p2p developers, including I2P, look at this Rodi (or AntsP2P since it's also Java) application and take the best parts out. In FOSS the team project who reinvents the wheel the least often has the best progress - Although again I must admit that I2P does an excellent job of gathering people into their project and communicating with its users and other developers much more than other anonymous p2p projects.
Also in general, I2P has been covered on infoanarchy, I dont' think I2P will grow fast until some killer applications (good working searchable p2p, a distributed content store, anonymous newsgroups) are included with the package. If that is the case then all the advertising in the world won't move I2P's population up as it doesn't appeal to the so called unwashed masses.
... that in about 5 years you'll read about this in a Robert X. Cringely column ... how it failed initially but is re-emerging in a new project that will be used to take over the world. Of course, Cringely is almost never right with predictions (and for that matter, neither am I).
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
.. do you really care about the anonymity of others to donate your bandwidth to the cause ?
Relay-based anonymous p2p won't take off the ground unless they include enforcable fairness provisions. Does anyone know such p2p frameworks ?
3.243F6A8885A308D313
In general, I find that any project that pushes its technology as a feature is doomed to fail. As a geek, yeah, I know what BitTorrent uses, but as a user I appreciate they don't beat me over the head about it. My prediction is that Rodi will die a nice, quiet death because it pushes the Dork factor, and a D2D network is going to be orders of magnitude smaller than a P2P network.
if i am receiving packets, my system must know the address of that sender. that is TCP/IP. therefore, the sender can always be determined.
this business of adding hops between the sender and receiver is pointless. that is not going to protect you. if you have sender A, receiver B, and intermediary C that passes packets between A and B, C is for all intents and purposes the sender. C will get sued.
But what would you call it when you're downloading? A Rodi? It sounds like some obscure STD...
Oh, I'm sorry. I meant STI.
But for it to catch on and not utterly suck, it will need to be re-implented in a programming platform that doesnt suck (eg, something other than Java. And no, Visual Basic doesnt count)
Really though, this doesn't sound so anonymous anyway. All the **AA has to do is set up a bunch of "C" machines, and keep logs.
Won't do them any good if the data being relayed through them is encrypted. All they'd have is dates, times, IPs, and volume of data sent by said IPs. Is that probable cause to 'crack down' on these IPs addresses and the people using them?
Any comments?
rockum
Hey, you know what?
Fuck copyright.
How's that?
Christ.
Why is copyright a sacred cow? Does anyone REALLY think people would stop creating content without it? Was it really necessary for Sonny Bono and the Senator From Disney to extend copyright ad infinitum et nauseum so that Mickey Mouse could be protected?
Fuck copyright.
Get rid of it.
+++ATH0
So many whiners on both sides of this topic. If you don't like the new client then don't use it. If you do then great knock yourself out. Trying to take the moral high ground from either standpoint is fine but having long winded posts about it isn't going to change the reality of either side.
help me with the logo, give me another one, make suggestions, give me ideas see alternative logo http://larytet.sourceforge.net/logos.shtml
What about P2P based on IRC?
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
Wouldn't C be charged with contributory infringement? So, instead of being in trouble for stuff that you've done, you get into trouble for all of the stuff that other people have done. Great.
The benefits to the RIAA are the same either way, it provides a large disincentive against using the softwawre.
But the vast, vast majority of people using a tool like this are doing so because it shields their illegal activities.
Interesting. Do you feel the same about cash?
Paper money and coins are really just a low-tech anonymous payment system. It could be replaced tomorrow by debit cards, with every transaction logged and identified (buyer, seller, products)- for your security, of course.
Would that be acceptable?
Is this sarcasm? if so, please indicate for morons like myself. Because if you were being serious, you couldn't be serious.
You "don't believe in automatically banning things that have legitimate uses..." Fortunately, that legal point does not rest on your beliefs, but on the Supreme Court's Betamax ruling. Beyond that, your post is 100% troll. Some people can't be trusted? Get the fuck outtahere. You mean in a free and open society, people can do whatever they want? Someone call in the cavalry, that can't be what the founding fathers meant. That's not democracy, that's chaos, Anarchy, Communism even.
You want to know how many spammers, virus writers, phishers, frausters, copyright violators, organized criminals, paedophiles and terrorists I'm willing to let get away with it? All of them. Because even in toto, they don't add up to the danger of one fascist.
In case you hadn't noticed, there are plenty of laws already to deal with crimes. What you want is not to deal with crimes, but with criminals. And you're willing to sacrifice other people's rights to do it. That's not even fascism, its chickenshit fascism. Fascism lite. You'll only take away rights from the people that don't deserve them. They're easy to spot, because the only ones that want to be anonymous have something to hide.
You know, great countries are never toppled. Instead, the values that made them great are abandoned. The sad, empty hulk of greatness gets toppled. America used to be a great country.
Much safer, these people have been working on this a long time.
Many clients, downloads:
http://www.planetpeer.de/wiki/index.php
or
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
No.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Computer A senda a packet to computer C that goes a little like this: hi my address is 192.168.1.2 Computer C is Smart* and goes 'okay, that's not a real address, but your packets are coming from the ip address of 24.116.111.25' At this point, the program has a real IP that it believes is your ip address, to which it will send data. and if you're relying on this program to protect your ip alone, you're now screwed. but remember, 24.116.111.25 is just one of 15,246 computers in your botnet. so you're not screwed, the ip being logged belongs to a hacked machine, and none of your compromized systems are keeping logs, and the digital trail of route forwards etc is changing hourly, to keep there from ever being a digital trail that actually leads anyone from discoving your true ip address... which happens to belong to an open wifi node that you're able to access from a concealed location with an antenna booster.
you are right, this program allows data to be sent to you, so someone using one of these programs knows your real ip, if the riaa/mpaa sets the 'honeypot' boxes up correctly, they are Only connected to the ip logging machines, which means since this uses a single hop of ip obscurification anyone who isn't hacking into other peoples systems to obscure thier ip addresses can still have their ips traced using this p2p method.
incidently, this program seems not to be a method to allow piracy, so much as one designed to 'bust' novice pirates wanna bes. Right now, with bt and other various p2p apps, one can download a 'blacklist' of ip addresses suspected, or known to belong to riaa/mpaa and informants. this program seems more to be used to hide the ip address of 'b' from 'a' so that they will access the honeypot machine, and get their ip logged, whereas other implementations have high quality blacklists that can be used to prevent you from connecting to the ip address of an riaa/mpaa ip logger.
*= previously programs weren't always smart enough to do this etc...
/search porn
/Look session started <fileName>porn</fileName>
Look completed 0
Look session stoped
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
This is a great point
... I feel so cliche with this subject line.
If B is acting as a go-between between A and C, that is wasted bandwidth. As a general P2P app, it is destined to fail if this go-between behaviour is supposed to happen with any regularity.
Sealand would be a great place to have the "C" Node ;)
Running any kind of distributed anonymizer software will violate the typical internet provider's Terms of Service, because you are acting as a common carrier for the data of unknown strangers.
True, those terms aren't normally enforced... unless the bandwidth usage gets high... or someone like the MPAA files a complaint... then they can pull out an excuse to instantly terminate your access.
Come on...I thought you people were suppose to be smart on this board.
C doesn't slow traffic whatsoever...
It's exactly the same function as a server to server FXP with the FTP proctocol.
Don't be so fucking short sighted.
-1 unnecessary use of polical buzzwords
Web hosted applets, sometimes work. However, stand-alone java apps suck. Just out of curiosity, can you compile this fucking java shit?
I have AbiWord and Open Office on my computer at the moment, as well as gnumeric. I rarely use "business productivity applications", but they're still there. Just off the top of my head, I have twice as many spreadsheets and wordprocessors on my computer as the typical Windows user does.
I'm not seeing the lack of software, here.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
There is and never will be complete anonymity as long as two points are the beginning and end of a communication. There is only obfuscation and misdirection.
This is not true. Broadcasts provide receivers with anonymity.
A dining cryptographers approach provides the sender with anonymity.
That doesn't mean that true anonymity is *reasonable* or *efficient* (i.e. that Joe Blow can share movies anonymously), but it is certainly possible.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
At that point, for everyone who could genuinely take advantage of true anonymity to make a contribution to society -- and I'm sure these people do exist -- how many spammers, virus writers, phishers, fraudsters, copyright violators, organised criminals, paedophiles, and even (really, for once) terrorists are we letting get away with it?
In a system allowing large scale (in the sense that there will be malicious users) anonymous access, there can be no vulnerabilities. It is as simple as that. If there are vulnerabilities, then you can't allow anonymous access.
Our email system has vulnerabilities. One user can cause vastly disproportionate damages (human time wasted on spam versus a cost in mere bandwidth and CPU cycles). Ability to amplify damages counts as a vulnerability, in terms of DoS attacks. This means that, yes, email cannot have anonymous users.
This is probably why Tor is not a viable long-term anonymous solution. It allows access to outside systems, many of which have vulnerabilities and are not designed to support anonymous users.
It is *quite* possible to have systems that do support anonymous users.
At that point, for everyone who could genuinely take advantage of true anonymity to make a contribution to society -- and I'm sure these people do exist -- how many spammers, virus writers, phishers, fraudsters, copyright violators, organised criminals, paedophiles, and even (really, for once) terrorists are we letting get away with it?
Ah, see, now you're showing bias -- you like the ability (not present in anonymous systems) of the majority to punish the minority for views that the majority does not agree with. Let's take a look:
spammers, virus writers, phishers, fraudsters
Yup, you can't allow anonymous access to a system that has vulnerabilities regarding anonymous use. If you have a user that could be scammed by a stranger coming up to him on the streets of New York, then you have a user that could be scammed by a random emailer. Email systems of today do not support anonymous users safely.
copyright violators...paedophiles
(I assume by paedophiles you mean those who spread and download child pornography, since that's really the only context in which this makes sense.) Yup. You can't have law enforcement on data propagation in an anonymous system. I wouldn't say that this is "good" or "bad" -- it's just a different system to work within. You can't limit content.
organised criminals...terrorists
Again, in an anonymous system, you don't have the ability to punish users for spreading data that the majority dislikes.
It might be worth considering that American Revolutionary War-era sniping, vandalism, and treason is all viewed as having been perfectly reasonable and just (at least in the US) today, but would have been on par with "the terrorists" to King George.
I am one of those people that believes that it is possible to have an anonymous data transfer system that is useful and can provide a valuable set of services. Some things may have to be done differently from how they are in a non-anonymous setting, but I don't think that it's an environment in which humans cannot function.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
(4) No copy of the material made by C in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections;
The purpose of a proxy is to provide a copy for other users, requesting the same material. The copy is transient, but it is typically maintained longer than the time required to just fulfill the request.
I ask this because several suggested anonymous networks work essentially as proxy swarms. Each "proxy" may store it shortly, but by shuffling it around semi-persistent copy always exists on the network. Could "anticipated recipients" be interpreted to include such a node storage? Is this the paragraph that lets news server provider off the hook, or is it a different one?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, another way of looking at it is that, when people are not under threat from the government, they choose to break the government's laws. To me, that indicates that the government needs to work better on implementing good laws, and helping people to understand respect for other members of society.
Anyone can choose to see this sort of thing as as an excuse to oppress people, but that's a pretty unhelpful attitude, when it comes to building a healthy society. Anonymity, in itself, is not the enemy. Rather, it's in important human right, which helps to protect other human rights. As I've mentioned above, it's also useful in guiding law makers to good solutions.
I appreciate your point about good laws, but please consider this: if anyone can be anonymous if they wish, how will you ever enforce any law against them, even the good ones?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, my point is that a good society is almost self-regulating: people do the right thing because it's unthinkable that they wouldn't, and if they did, they would be social outcasts. That would still happen, with anonymous downloading, because friends would see the songs they've downloaded etc.
I don't disagree with that. I'm just more concerned about the word "almost" than you are. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
does it cause harm because society makes the people under 18 who participate in it feel shamed and wrong? Does it cause harm because society is all screwed up with regards to sex? Or is it just that somehow, sexual activity at any time under the age of 18 always causes the younger subject to immediately become damaged, and that damage will echo into the later parts of their life?
It is a complicated question.
Yes, I agree that there are exceptions, and even that those exceptions, if left unchecked, could undermine everything. Can we agree then, that the first stage in regulating society should be social education, expectations, and peer pressure, and etiquette, with legal measures and other "stick-based" approaches as secondary?
Always.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's not evil. Person A can snail-mail letters to person B, while C is not permitted to open and read them. In fact it would be a felony in the US to open them without a court order. How are anonymous e-transmissions any different? Why does C have a right to see everything A is saying? If someone finds a way to promote e-transmissions from a postcard-standard to an envelope-standard, then all the better.
In general, I agree with you. But for peer-to-peer filesharing applications, the argument of privacy does not not really work well.
All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people who will use this program will do it in an attempt to hide their IP address when illegally pirating copyright protected works.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
The fact in this matter is that someone wants to create a brand new torrent client (which innovated the internet to begin with) and he wants to add IP spoofing to it (a great idea). Well, the thing is... it's going to be extremely hard to get the word out with a new torrent client -- it's just going to have to be revolutionary... so I don't think this idea will last. But if he combined his IP spoofing with Bram's torrent client, I think that would make a wonderful new release of BitTorrent.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
similar functionality has been provided by the japanese program winny (http://www.uguu.org/winny/) and the newer share (http://www.uguu.org/share/) for some time (with encryption, too)