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.' "
__
Laugh Daily funny free videos
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.
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.
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
...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.
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.
B (the guy sharing the file, and thus liable, the **AA usually gets the sharers, not the downloaders) still has his IP given to C though. A is anonymous, but B is not.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
User base will not grow very well unless a candy client is developed so that most non-tech savy users can try it out, using a simple setup and controls.
The technology looks promising for a few of these P2P dohickys, but if its not simplified, you'll never get the files you really want from the folks who have them, unless the client has a candy coated super easy setup with big toysRus style glow buttons.
me
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.
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?
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!
Who cares if A can hide their identity? B can't.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Wanting anonymity doesn't necessarily mean your doing something illegal.
I just means I don't want people all up in my sh*t.
Well, I am not saying that this is how this works, but in theory the following is possible:
B = sender
A = receiver
C, D = intermediaries
We assume that intermediaries cannot be held liable for their intermediacy. Thus the "vulnerable" parties are A and B. Thus A and B must be protected from any other party, including each other.
For any sent packets that are UDP-spoofed, (spoof) appears after the step number.
Here's a scenario that achieves that:
1. A selects intermediary C, and requests customer id Q; C associates Q to A's IP address.
2. (spoof) A sends search request R for an object O to D.
R contains customer id H, C's IP address, and key K.
3. D broadcasts request to entire network.
4. B receives request R and decides it can satisfy it.
5. (spoof) B encrypts object O with key K and sends it to C.
6. C forwards encrypted O to A.
Now, let's analyze it:
C does not know the address of B, thus B is protected from C.
C also does not know the content of O as it is encrypted, thus A is protected from C.
D does not know the address of A, thus A is protected from D.
Since D has broadcast the request further on, D does not know that B has replied, thus B is protected from D. As a corollary, B is also protected from A.
Further indirection and cloaking can be introduced to avoid the situation where both C and D are in on the game, in which case A will be detected.
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...
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.
but you must understand what I mean.
Oh absolutely. I'm not going to argue details over whether your catalytic converter is good or bad from an environmental point of view - it would distract from the actual debate.
I do see your point and I agree that it's a question of what rules society sets. We differ on whether setting rules on something like your cat is the same in principle as setting rules on something like anonymity.
Differences are the following:
1. There is a confirmed and unvarying negative effect from your CAT (debate aside, we can substitute something else if you like). With anonymity it is a case of presumed guilt and punishment on the basis of a possible negative.
2. A limit on something like the CAT is not a limit on your freedom in the same sense that recording your behaviour in a giant database is, in that the latter is much more far reaching and is ill-defined in its effects. At least you know the consequences of tearing out your CAT. They say, "you did this, your punishment is that." It is under judicial control. A government profile on you is not. If someone is looking at you on a list and seeing that you visited politically sensitive sites and this is influencing their behaviour to you, then that is something that is outside of judicial control. Punishment by opinion, politics and power.
3. The CAT is something that affects the mass of humanity (again subsitute pissing in the resevoir or whatever if environmental damage from a CAT is in dispute). It is something with negative consequences for us all. Anonymity is a negative consequence for a select few (those in power). Should laws be instituted for the benefit of the mass of people or for the power elite? I firmly believe in the former and the category difference between the CAT and anonymity is clear to me.
I hope this clarifies my position and helps you see my point of view. You're point about society making the rules may be valid, but I believe it is a small (and rich) sub-group of society that is making these rules at the expense of the rest.
All this in the spirit of reasoned debate to arrive at the Truth, rather than for the sake of an argument.
-Harmony.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.