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.' "

Comments

Nice!

[Enigma_Man]

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

Re:Nice!

[Enigma_Man]

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.

I do appreciate the ability for anonymity though (despite my dripping sarcasm), despite the fact that 99.99% of people will just use it to anonymously pirate things. I think the main use I can think of for actual anonymity is for use in political situations; to report ethics violations of the bad-guys, to point out crapulence in the government, etc.

-Jesse

Re:Nice!

[squiggleslash]

I suspect the summary is wrong.

If A's address is hidden from C, how can C send IP packets to A, performing the "middleman" role?

Generally speaking, you can easily, right now, but probably not for much longer, spit out IP packets with addresses that are incorrect. Hence it makes sense that this is a system for hiding A's address from B. However, somewhere along the line, A's address has to be known by someone otherwise the packets will never be routed to A.

Now B's address is quite probably hidable from C. The transaction would go something like:

A to C: Would you proxy packets to me? Please, pretty please?
C: Sure kid, knock yourself out.
A (without a correct sender IP address) to B: You don't know who I am, but would you mind sending file "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Lucas, The Good Version" to C.
B: Sure, here's the file.
B (without a correct sender IP address) to C: You don't know who I am, I understand you have someone who wants this file. Here it is.
C to A: Here's the file you requested.

In the above, C's address isn't hidden. A's is, from B, but not from C. B's is, but A knows about it. For A to be the eventual destination of the file, someone must know A's address, otherwise the packets will never get there.

As for the FBI intercepting this traffic, they really have few options. It's unlikely what A's doing is illegal, and there's no smoking gun with respect to B. If they are C, they cannot find out B's address so will not know who's copying their content. They know A's address, but A isn't copying anything.

Incidentally, before anyone comments, I'm commenting on this as a technical solution. I do not endorse this as a way to facilitate copyright infringement, something I'm generally opposed to. A quick look at my posting history will confirm this.

Indeed, I'm actually relatively unhappy with what's being proposed as, unfortunately, the primary reason it appears to have been developed has been to facilitate copyright infringement. Right now, as I said in a previous post:

We need to disassociate ourselves with copyright infringement. We need to devise ways of keeping unauthorized music away from the P2P networks, and replace that content with new, original work, devising new and innovative ways to fund it.

The best way to destroy a technology and ensure it cannot be used for good is to make its primary purpose bad and/or easy to legally attack. The kind of thing being proposed here today will make ever more draconian legislative attacks on Internet users a reality. We need a new approach.

P2P interview with Rodi Developer Laryete

[Hulkster]

P2P interviewed Rodi Developer Laryete a while back.

First Post?

Boy

[Anita Coney]

I'd hate to be C.

Illegal content with my IP?

[3770]

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.

Replacement?

[erasmix]

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.

See also:

[RichardX]

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

I happen to like non-anonymity

[AIX-Hood]

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.

BitTorrent already fairly strong

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

The best way for the RIAA to stop P2P...

[amichalo]

...is to embrace on-line distribution - even p2p itself!

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 .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.)

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.

Re:Malware

[Jemm]

" Will it install Malware, adware, nagware like Kazaa? I still stick with Unet groups."

Shhh!!!, there's an unwritten rule on /. stating that no one will make mention of unet^H^H^H^H, um, never mind

I don't think so...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

Re:Common Carrier status for C ?

[cpt kangarooski]

ISPs are not common carriers. Thus, it's possible that they could be liable for what goes over the network. There have been court cases that have gone both ways. In response to this uncertainty, Congress set up a safe harbor at 17 USC 512. It makes things clear, but requires ISPs to take some steps to comply with it.

For this sort of application, the 512(a) exception seems best. 512(a) protects C from liability stemming from C's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for C, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections. Note that 512(a) does not protect C from liability stemming from anything else it does.

In order to qualify all of the following requirements have to be met:

(1) The transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than C;

(2) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by C;

(3) C does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

(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;

(5) The material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

(6) C must have adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of C's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of C's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

(7) C must accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures. "Standard technical measures" means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and--
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers (such as C) or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.

(8) C must be an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

(9) C must be a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, which is inclusive of (8) above.

(10) C must comply with applicable subpoenas and court orders.

No. here's what we need:

[Punto]

what we need is a mix between freenet and i2p. This 'bouncing' thing is nice, but it slows down the transfer, because I don't know if the guys between me and the source of the warez have good connections.. It would be nice to have a network like freenet, where everyone holds a random bit of the data on a semi-permanent basis, and to be able to choose the ammount of hops I want to have between me and the people I want to connect to, like on i2p. If I choose to have 0 hops, and the other guy chooses to have 0 hops, we'd be connecting directly, but still we have no way of knowing it (because the other guy could have >0 hops before him). And even if we knew it, we would have plausible deniability; the other guy is just holding a piece of random data, he doesn't know what it is.

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.

Re:An appropriate story considering

[Dim_Slashdot]

No they didn't

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=811

Why anonymity tips the balance too far

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Wanting anonymity doesn't necessarily mean your doing something illegal.

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?

Re:Backwards

[MichaelDelving]

Gah!!! I have moderator points, and there's no -1 (stupid) moderation option. I am not surprised that a lone idiot (that would be you, Elwood) spouted nonsense. I AM disappointed that the moderation system resulted in a +4 (and probably a +5 by the time I finish typing) rating for the parent post. Sigh, overrated just doesn't cover it. Okay concrete thinkers, forget the A, B, and C example. Each participant can specify how many hops they want. So generalize to an B (leacher), C, D, E and F (seeder) example. Only C has B's IP address. And only E has F's address. And as far as C knows, there's an A involved. And as far as E is concerned, there might be a G. The upshot is that any intermediary isn't aware of whether it's dealing with the seeder, the leacher, or another intermediary. And I believe the law of the land is still "innocent 'til proven guilty."