Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Party Launches Commercial Darknet

CrystalFalcon writes "The Swedish Pirate Party has launched a commercial, high-capacity darknet, on an unprecedented scale and bandwidth. This service lets anybody send and receive files anonymously without being tracked or traced. 'There are many legitimate reasons to want to be completely anonymous on the Internet,' says Rickard Falkvinge, chairman of the Pirate Party. 'If the government can check everything each citizen does, nobody can keep the government in check.'"

35 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. Rock On Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The nightmare of the *AA and my pipe dream. When's it coming to the states and where do I sign up?

  2. Net Neutrality by comrade+k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think this is an awesome idea, but how will it work with the looming lack of net neutrality?

    --
    "Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." -Robert H. Goddard
    1. Re:Net Neutrality by frosty_tsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's in Sweden. Net Neutrality doesn't directly affect it.

    2. Re:Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As far as I understand the "lack of net neutrality" would only effect US* users of the aforementioned darknet. AFAIK for networks outside the US the net remains neutral**

      *Yes yes I know or packets traversing across a US network segment.
      **Neutral until the Telco's lobby the US administration to reign in them darn foreigners. After all its their divine right to extort money from those who have made a successful internet business.

    3. Re:Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      US. law applies everywhere, apparently.

    4. Re:Net Neutrality by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's not an awesome idea because as much as it has it's good use there is also the darker side with pedophile, snuff and other crap that should not be tolerated.

      Snuff films are not real. And the problem with pedophilia isn't the transmission of images of the sexual abuse of children, it's when actual sexual abuse of children goes on.

      Freedom has risks. If you have free elections, the "wrong" guys might win. If you have secure communications, "terrorists" might use them to make plans. If you have the right to keep and bear arms, "bad guys" may have guns.

      But if you believe in freedom, you're very very wary of the state getting to define who the "wrong" guys, the "terrorists", the "bad guys", are. Consider that Martin Luther King Jr. was a target of COINTELPRO; consider Nixon's "enemies list"; consider the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dredd Scott decision, the Alien and Sedition acts, the Red Scares, the concentration camps for Japanese Americans...

      you cant have a place where you can bend the rules forever, that's anarchy!

      And? "Anarchy" means no ruling hierarchy. Some people think that's a good idea, especially when it comes to communication. As Robert Anton Wilson put it, "A monopoly on the means of communication may define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of `monopoly in the means of production.' Since man extends his nervous system though channels of communication like the written word, the telephone, radio, etc., he who controls these media controls part of the nervous system of every member of society. The contents of these media become part of the contents of every individual's brain."

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Net Neutrality by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not outside the US, no.

      Inside the US, though, the customers of large US telecom companies may be firewalled off from the service by the very people they are paying for Net access. If not that, they may be slowdd to a trickle of traffic.

      If I was paying for access to "The Internet", and my service provider wasn't giving me access to everything I could legally access, then I'd be getting ripped off, wouldn't I?

      So for the rest of the world US net neutrality laws don't matter so much. For those of us in the US, they matter a great deal, even when the traffic starts overseas.

  3. Question? by Cherita+Chen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it is commercial, couldn't the company' records be subpoenaed (in a worst case scenario) by state/local/etc authorities? If so, I would think that would spell even worse trouble for a user.

    --
    I'm not fat, just big boned...
    1. Re:Question? by kickedfortrolling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think part of the point is that sweedish law gives much higher burdens of proof for requesting such info. TFA gives some interesting (but maybe unreliable given US law's recent incursions) info about the law they rely on

      --
      --AlexC
      Just because I dont agree with climate change doesnt make me a troll
    2. Re:Question? by dcapel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Records? What Records?!

      --
      DYWYPI?
    3. Re:Question? by mincognito · · Score: 4, Insightful


      If it is commercial, couldn't the company' records be subpoenaed (in a worst case scenario) by state/local/etc authorities?

      Records? What records?

    4. Re:Question? by gkhan1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Been reading the Baroque Cycle, have we? ;)

      You are drastically underestimating the genius of Newton and the influence he would have on science. Saying "Newton did a handful of big things - laws of motion and universal gravitation (although these were building on the work of others more than is generally seen)" is like saying "Yeah, Einstein fooled around with physics, but really anyone who studied Planck and Maxwell could figure out that stuff".

      He didn't just develop "laws of motion" and figure out "universal gravitation". As you said, this had been worked on by many people before. What Newton did that was so extraordinary was that he was able to, with four simple laws, explain EVERYTHING. He explained why Galileos balls fell like they did, he was able to explain Keplers four laws (which took Kepler 17 years to figure out), he was able to explain how the earth was kept in orbit around the sun, he was able to explain why the moon circled the earth. You have to realise the enourmous scientific breakthrough of being able not only to explain planets and apples movements, but to actually realise and prove that they were the same force!

      After Newton, most people were of the opinion that physics was basically done! The rest was small stuff, maybe clarify exactly how the laws worked in fluids, or figure out that magnetism stuff. In the 19th century, students were actually advised not to study physics, because since Newton had finished it, it wasn't really a subject for the future.

      Newtonian mechanics reigned as completely unchallenge for 180 years! 180 years! Only in 1864 with James Clerk Maxwells equations did a seed of doubt become planted, but there would be no other theory for another forty years. Between 1687 and 1905, Newton had not ever been even slightly modified. I mean, imagine that. In the modern world there is general relativity and quantum physics, but they change all the time, with string theory and m-theory, and the accelarating universe and whatnot. Not so with Newton, his theories remained, completely intact. They were that good.

      A wonderful quote from Lagrange (who inarguably knew more about this stuff than us two) is "Newton was the greatest genius that ever existed and the most fortunate, for we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish". Turns out he weren't entirely correct, but you can hear in that quote that impact that Newton had had. He had explained how the world worked. All of it. Simple as that.

      This is not even mentioning all the other amazing stuff that he did, the optics, the telescopes (which were indeed the greatest telescopes of it's day, and is still in wide use today), etc. Yeah, I agree, Hooke was a genius, but what did he do that was comparable to Newton? Discovered and coined the word "cell"? Hooke's law of elasticity? Assorted discoveries in Biology? His architetural feats? That doesn't even come close to Newton.

      And so what if he was an asshole? Sure he treated both Hooke and Leibniz (and pretty much the rest of the western world) like shit, but does that mean his scientific discoveries are somehow worth less?

      Bottom line, Newton completely changed how we view the world. Him and Einstein, those are the only two that can make a claim on explain the System of the World.

  4. Piracy really isn't all that bad. by D14BL0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This new political party is sure to cause a bit of panic all over the world, due to the extreme, overrated hype of piracy.

    Not all piracy is a bad thing. I mean, software these days is seriously overpriced. You could teach yourself some very basic programming skills (Visual Basic, for instance), and create a program that'll do exactly what the $100+ equivilant does.

    So of course people will pirate it. Why? Because it's rediculous to pay for something like that.

    Then there's music. Just to let you know, piracy HARDLY hurts the musician. Considering that 90% of the sales go to the record company before the artist ever sees a penny, they're really not "losing" much at all.

    Then again, sometimes piracy is a bad thing. Especially for the movie industry. Millions (if not billions) of dollars go into the making of a movie. While, yes, theater sales bring in tons of cash, DVD releases are also a huge factor in a movie's income. Downloading a movie hurts people a lot more than downloading music.

    Piracy has become such an overrated "controversy" lately that it's unbarable. Look at the price of blank CDs. Did you know that you have to pay a "piracy tax" for these? Yep. All because some higher-ups think that an extra buck or two will help save a movie studio or a record company. It's batty. What if I just want to burn copies of pictures from my family vacation? Now I've gotta pay the MPAA and RIAA some extra cash for something that they don't deserve? Get real.

    All these corporations think that they're helping people by attempting to foil piracy. Yes, they've got their hearts in the right places, but they're doing it all wrong. "Right track, wrong train" is a good saying for this. They really need to clean up their acts when suing people. I mean, they've gone so far as to sue old ladies who can barely turn their computer on, yet let huge pirates go unnoticed.

    Why's this?

    Because if they let big pirates continue doing their thing, then they get to keep on making more and more money with the "piracy taxes" and suing people left and right for WAY more than the material they've pirated is worth. They're letting people go to keep themselves in the game, which is horrible.



    Also, just a little side note, to anybody who thinks the RIAA or MPAA might be knocking on your door. Go ahead and go to court, but bring up the fact that an IP address is not a person. Since your IP is the only log they have of the download (even if they have the MAC, that'll only ID a computer, not a single person), you'll win in court. And they'll lose out on a bunch of money for the court date, as well. Two-for-one, if you ask me. =D

  5. Exporting a society's good things by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all these years of the US government exporting moralistic and lobby-built laws (soft drug prohibition, "ethernal" copyright, etc), it's nice to see somebody trying to export their society's (swedish) values of respect for freedom and privacy, even if their current crop of mainstream politicians seems to be in the pockets of the US admistration.

    On the other hand, i expect that if the Relakks service becomes popular expect laws to be passed soon in other countries to curtail access to it.

    1. Re:Exporting a society's good things by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I prefer the old, "amoralistic" laws myself, like prohibition of theft, murder, that kind of thing.

      Clue: most laws are "moralistic."

      Most laws are designed to make it possible for people to live together in the most productive way possible (thus NOT an anarchy and NOT the law of the strongest). These laws thus concern themselfs with avoiding that one person knowingly or purposelly causes harm to another person (such as murder, theft, etc), secure trading (contracts, sales laws, etc) and avoiding "tragedy of the commons" situations with shared resources (environmental laws, zoneing laws, etc)

      Any laws dictating what a person cannot do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own house and without causing any harm to others is a moralistic law in that it tries to forcifully deny to others the (lawfull) possibility of acting in certain ways, even though those actions would have no negative impact for third parties.

      Soft drugs prohibition is thus a moralistic law since smoking pot in the privacy of one's home causes no harm to others, while for example a law prohibiting driving while under the influence of drugs would NOT be a moralistic law since driving under influence strongly increases the chances of an accident which could harm to others.

  6. Re:ah... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm nervous after visiting the iranian president's blog page...

    I'm nervous when people are nervous about standing up for themselves and saying, "Go fuck yourself, I'll read whatever I damned well like."

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  7. Software piracy really is all that bad by patio11 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I run an independent software vendor (gross sales to date: $250 -- hey, its a hobby and if you're going to make fun do better first). It took me approximately 50 hours to write the software which I sell and the program's complexity approaches that of Notepad. Perhaps some people with far, far too much free time would say its ridiculous to pay me $25 when they could just spend the 50 hours themselves. Fine, I understand that -- then bloody write the thing yourself. In reality, everyone who comes up with that lame excuse spends 45 seconds trying variations on Google of crackz, serialz, and whatnot to find the latest Chinese hacker group to have broken my just-enough-to-keep-honest-men-honest registration scheme, and then 600 of them hit my web server in a day.


    Thats not enough for some cheeky bastards, though. After people have gotten their latest crackz, I get a surge of search results from Google for things legitimate customers never search for (e.g. Name of the Program V 1.0 download). I lost $10 last time I got the hacker surge because I bid on my own program name as an AdWords keyword and the "its not stealing, its copyright infringement!!!1" crowd literally picked my pocket for a quarter a click.

    1. Re:Software piracy really is all that bad by bayankaran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      its ridiculous to pay me $25 when they could just spend the 50 hours themselves...

      One of the issues I have with smaller shareware apps is the price - rather than $25 for your app, if you cut the price to say $10 more people will be tempted to pay rather than look for a crack/serial. And I am writing from experience.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    2. Re:Software piracy really is all that bad by modeless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why the Internet needs a workable micropayment scheme. $25 is far too high a price for software of the complexity you describe; $.25 is more like it. If people could send you a quarter hassle-free and without minimum per-transaction overhead eating your profits alive, it wouldn't even be worth their time to try and search for a crack. You could be earning $150 in a day (your 600 hits figure) instead of $25 once in a blue moon.

    3. Re:Software piracy really is all that bad by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree, but you will find slashdot swamped with people who think they have a 'right' to take your hard work, and cloak this theft under some truly lame argument about 'information wanting to be free'.
      In fact, I do have a right to copy and distribute anyone's writings, but the society in which I live gives the creator of those writings a limited monopoly on distribution. This is, in theory, so that he will continue to distribute other writings that will increase the sum total of knowlege when the monopoly has expired. (To be perfectly clear, copyright infringers do not "take work" as that is impossible, but I gathered what you meant)

      If your believe you have a right to take anything you need, regardless of your means to pay, i cant see how your not an anarchist or a communist.
      I believe all people have the right to take anything they need to live regardless of ability to pay. Oddly enough, I do consider myself a bit of an anarchist and am not ashamed to say it; do not make the mistake of taking my sig for my ideology though -- it is just something interesting I read. Since the topic is copyrighted works, none of which are essential for survival, it is odd that you would say that.

      Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
      Just as nobody is born with an innate right to sell episodes of "24" for whatever they wish. You seem to mistake copyright as being a property right. I assure you, it is not. Society has decided it is better for all of us if we give creators that monopoly on distribution that I spoke of. My society (well, politicians) thinks that the life of the author plus 70 years is the length of monopoly best to get people to distribute their works (with the overall goal being the enrichment of the public domain, mind you). I respectfully disagree.

      Reminder: copyright infringment is illegal, but not necessarily immoral.
    4. Re:Software piracy really is all that bad by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Until you separate "theft" and "copyright infringment" in your mind, you cannot think clearly about this area. There is a host of cases, and a host of issues, making for an almost unlimited number of shades of grey, with reasonably economic incentive for (author|consumer|society) varying depending on perspective.

      And until you split your concepts, you are blind.

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  8. Copyright incompatible with privacy by gronofer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm impressed with this idea, and particularly with one of their statements:
    The only way to enforce today's unbalanced copyright laws is to monitor all private communications over the Internet.
    This is one of the reasons I'm opposed to copyright myself.
  9. Re:Ahem by Canordis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although this is better for speed, isn't it bad for anonimity? Traffic that has been over four hosts is harder to trace back than traffic that has hopped over a single host.

    --
    I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
  10. it will just be full of movies and music and games by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There are many legitimate reasons to want to be completely anonymous on the Internet"
    And copying a King Kong DVD rip is not one of them. Its sad when people take the legitmate point about anonymity that you might need for political organisations, journalists and whistle-blowers, and just use it as an excuse to facilitate warez and music copying.
    And calling yourselves the 'pirate party' is just plain insane. Whats wrong with "the consumer rights' party? or do they realsie thats way too hypocritical.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  11. Re:ah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm nervous when people are nervous about standing up for themselves and saying, "Go fuck yourself, I'll read whatever I damned well like."

    What country do you live in? I live in the USA where people voted in a facist administration that thinks the Constitution is a quaint document that is exactly where it belongs in a museum. If we could wrap copper around the founding fathers we wouldn't need foreign oil. Their spinning bodies could power the country for the next thousand years. If you mod this funny you aren't paying attention.

  12. Re:Right... by crhylove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Freedom of Speech doesn't jump to mind? Especially in this day and age of NSA wiretapping? I have no idea what you've been smoking in order to lack the imagination to see that one.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  13. Re:it will just be full of movies and music and ga by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whats wrong with "the consumer rights' party?

    When I was a kid we had these things called "people." I miss them. Nice folk; and a good many of them were producers.

    KFG

  14. Re:it will just be full of movies and music and ga by GroeFaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And calling yourselves the 'pirate party' is just plain insane. Whats wrong with "the consumer rights' party? or do they realsie thats way too hypocritical.

    According to the rest of your rant, 'honest' should come to your mind instead of 'hypocritical', because you don't perceive them as a "consumer rights party" anyway, or do you? It's an ironic statement on how they are perceived, playing with their underdog image. And people like you, obviously, would never see anything else than the "pirate" part, which is exactly why they are important, to constantly challenge such views.

    Furthermore, I think the name is well chosen regardless, because can "The Consumers' Rights Party" get any more boring and non-descriptive? "The Pirate Party" is concise, provoking (to some), and easily remembered.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  15. Re:Important note... by 70Bang · · Score: 4, Insightful


    There's very little in the actual document which isn't in the published article when it comes to cost.

    ...I would thihnk that charging comercially[sic] for the service is nessesary to keep it from becoming a spammer tool...

    Have you been living on Gilligan's Island?

    5eu/month is, as pointed out in the FA, at the current exchange rate: $6.359.

    Before Scotty Richter was castrated, he was bringing $2M into his office, yes, two million U$ monthly. And he wasn't the king of the mountain.

    Can you explain how $6.359/month going to make a spammer think twice about using the service? Particularly when you consider the anonymity. No more looking for open proxies & relays.

    They pay far, far, far more than that to set up shop in China, then send all of that crap back to the US. Most spam originates from the US as the 2003 U-CAN-SPAM law[1] basically gave them free reign, but the big boys still rely upon China.

    Here are the top 200 spammers responsible for 80% of the crap which is dropped in your inbox.
    Some of these guys (e.g. Ralsky) have substantial setups in their basements or an office (when they-he aren't|isn't getting caught running around in nothing but a black thong -- yes, there's a picture of it in an anti-spam archive.

    But seriously. How do you think ~$6/month is going to stop a spammer. I'm not trying to present a loaded question here. I really do want to know your perspective on this because you may have insights no one else has considered.

    The only way I can see this not becoming a spam haven is if there's a volume limit for that price and you have to pay $x/volume for each increment after that.

    I'm all ears.

    _______________________________
    [1] Very effective, wouldn't you say? Has your volume of spam decreased (without human intervention to separate the wheat from the chaffe?)

  16. Latency? by hippo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see lots of posts about bandwidth, which is fine if you're planning to use this service to copy large quantities of data, but for any other use latency is more important.

    This won't be much use for me if it makes the latency of my VPN connection to my employer so slow that typing into VNC becomes useless. At the moment I get ~20ms ping times from home to work (somewhere in the UK to somewhere else in the UK) and typing via VNC over a VPN is just as good as if I were at work. I've had times when the latency went up and it rapidly becomes impossible to type at normal speed because you can't correct your mistakes as you go.

    Has anyone got any figures for latency for this ISP?

  17. Re:Ahem by Bobosan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're in that much trouble that they NEED to find you, believe Me, they will find you. Be it 1 hop, or 4 hops, it doesn't matter. Sure, I'd rather trust a Sweedish company for my sense of peace rather than Tor. At least you know where your hops are going with this. With Tor, it's a good idea, but what if the governemnt was running massive tor routers, sniffing packets from whatever comes across their electronic doorstep? You see, that is the weakness of Tor, besides it's speed. You need a trusted source to begin with. If you don't, it will auto-build the network as time goes on as it finds a node. But still, if one of those nodes are packet-sniffing everything, then all is for naught. Either way, if anything 'bad' happens to you, you'll still be just as screwed, but hey, at least you'll have more bandwith and less latentcy.

  18. Moderators Aren't Strange by Morosoph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're PC. The now grandparent was fluffing up Digg, and clan loyalty is such that some consider it flamebait. I try to point this out sometimes, but that itself risks a downmod.

    The average Slashdotter is still under the influence of either their parents, or else draconian work laws over what can be said and not said. You don't fluff up the opposition; the modern social dialogue, on either side of the political spectrum is about advantage, not truth.

    The irony is that Slashdot's leaning is generally some blend of anarchist and libertarian; a position that I am very comfortable with. This general PC movement has the feel of "protecting our freedoms by restricting our rights".

  19. Sigh. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please see:

    1. "The Watchmen"
    2. Star Trek.
    3. At least 6 million news stories about the CIA each year.
    4. Bruce Schneier
    5. About 6 hundred million blogs commenting about the news stories.

    Oh, and

    6. Decimus lunius luvenalis, better known as Juvenal.

  20. Re:Slashdot: yesterday's news for nerds by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that there's something to be said here about that. To me it says that /. users are too lazy to go forage for their own articles and instead go cherry pick them off of digg. Why? Because the digg community picks the stories, not a handful of select people. If /. wants to continue to do things that way, I have no bones about, it's just interesting that the /. model lags behind other sites.

    The one thing that I think /. has over digg is the discussions and moderation system. I was reading the comments over at digg and I felt like I was in a room full of 3 year olds (insert joke here). At least here I feel like the least meaningful and mature comments carry more relevancy than most of what I read over there.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  21. Some definitions... by Analogy+Man · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Democratic: Representative government where the people have free access to information about the government and the goverments access to information about citizens has checks and balances.

    Authoritarian: Government based on manipulation of power where access to government information is limited and access to citizen information by government is unfettered.

    Ask yourself which direction the US government is heading.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.