Anonymous' WikiLeaks-Like Project Tyler To Launch In December

hypnosec writes "A hacker who claims to be a member of the hacking collective Anonymous has revealed that the hacktivist group is working on a Wikileaks-like service dubbed Tyler and that it will be launched on December 21. The Anonymous member revealed that the service will be decentralized and will be based on peer-to-peer service, unlike Wikileaks, thus making Tyler rather immune to closure and raids. The site will serve as a haven for whistleblowers, where they can publish classified documents and information. The hacker said in an emailed interview that 'Tyler will be P2P encrypted software, in which every function of a disclosure platform will be handled and shared by everyone who downloads and deploys the software.'" That sounds like a lot to live up to. Decentralized, attack-resistant and encrypted all sound nice, but I'm curious both about the funding it would take, and whether it matches Wikileaks' own security.

Comments

Anonymous/Tyler/KKK same thing.

[cellurl]

The guy had a bomb in his shoe. Q: What was the result?
Now all you smart /.-ers guess what Tyler will do?

You guessed it, more government, more SOPA. Wise up boys, keep it in your pants.

Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets

Re:It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be a government funded honeypot

"Information wants to be free"

[concealment]

I think this phrase is vastly misunderstood.

People take it to mean, "If there's any information out there that I want, I should be able to have it, regardless of the consequences."

That was never the case, historically. Information wanting to be free means that when market forces restrict our access to factual information, like how a PDP-11 allocates memory, that information should be liberated.

That has nothing to do with piracy, secrets, etc. which have secondary consequences.

Ask yourself: if someone got a copy of all of your secrets, including your financial records and (lack of) sexual partners, maybe some stuff you'd rather bury for a century or two, and published it, would you be OK with that?

Re:"Information wants to be free"

[mspohr]

This is not about personal privacy.
This is about governments and other public bodies trying to keep secrets from the people who elected them (or, in some cases, didn't elect them). One could argue that this information should be freely available (with reasonable restrictions) but in an effort to cover up and deceive, governments keep the information secret.
Wikileaks seemed to take a lot of effort to prevent personal private information from disclosure.
Many governments have "Freedom of information" laws which specifically grant access to government information so they do recognize that information should be free. However, there is always a battle about where to draw the line with governments wanting to be more restrictive and "the people" wanting more information.

Re:"Information wants to be free"

[Jessified]

Indeed. Comparing individual privacy interests with government secrecy is a pretty stupid analogy.

Government are not individuals with inalienable rights. They service (or rather should service) their constituents. The only government secrets that are worth keeping are the ones that revealing would actually harm the people, rather than the government.

In an ideal world, there should be no conflict between the people of a democracy and its government...a perfect government would already be serving its people's interests.

Re:"Information wants to be free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Information wanting to be free means that when market forces restrict our access to factual information, like how a PDP-11 allocates memory, that information should be liberated.

Wrong. "Information wants to be free" has nothing to do with "should" any more than "Water wants to flow downhill" does. Both are amoral observations about the world, not a call to action.

It means that it's extremely difficult to keep information contained, because once it gets out, it tends to propagate because there are no natural constraints on its ability to reproduce. e.g. if I tell you a secret, I have forever lost the ability to take it back, and if I don't want it getting out, I have to actively set up artificial barriers to prevent it. Without such barriers, the secret becomes "free" in the sense that I lose control over it.

Whether we should take action to restrain or promote the free flow of information is a completely separate discussion.