Unofficial Wikileaks mirror on I2P Yes, the full link really is that long. That is because I2P does not fully rely on domain names... that b64 string is the site's public key which is also it's address.
* You need the I2P software (a FOSS project and free download) to use both of the above address. *
Once the info for the new site propagates through the network, you can even access the I2P mirror *without* the I2P software using this URL. Of course, using this method you won't be anonymous.
A word about I2P: It's a network that provides anonymized IP-like communication using methods similar to Tor, but designed to handle torrents and other large loads efficiently. It is also less centralized than Tor, and taking down even 90% of the nodes (incl original ones) should still leave it running and accessible. It also has facilities for automatically mirroring files and sites. One downside is that configuring your browser to use the I2P Web is a manual process that must be done carefully. Overall though it seems to be pretty impressive.
And the actions of Amazon and many other corps play dirty with their customers when the State Dept or Pentagon tell them to. I don't think MS is any exception to that corporatist dynamic.
Unix (the free variants) can be fully audited down to the last bit if necessary (unusual/bar behavior can be much more easily explained and fixed with some investigative effort).
Windows is simply NOT up to dealing with high security needs.
What in high heavens has the ego of Assange to do with anything?
Ego over-reaches. Ego makes mistakes. Ego is not to be trusted.
The simplest and safest way of dealing with a man like Assange is to wait until he self-destructs and takes Wikileaks down with him.
Yeah, the egos belong behind corporate news desks spouting half-truths, bold-faced lies and PR press releases. It makes for a longer, more satisfying career.
What exactly was broken about the Unix "everything is a file" metaphor? Plan 9 seemed to get a long with with using that to describe windows.
Interesting. I remember the Amiga had quite a bit of that "WINDOW:0/0/400/100" to open a window with certain dimensions. Same for sound and speech and other things. The problem comes when you have to modify that object apart from the data stream... then you have to parse escape codes and translate from ASCII and polling for status info is difficult or impossible.
I see nothing wrong with modern OO APIs. The problem is that the FOSS hacker community will stand by interfaces used by their peers (remember, an interface is a "contract"), but they scream "freedom!" when it comes to committing to USER interfaces. These people do not make commitments to people they can't relate to, so end users get left twisting in the wind.
Actually, he pushed an incorrect assumption that operating systems don't include graphical interfaces (any other type of interface, but not graphics apparently).
I remember the Macintosh and Amiga and what their software architectures were like.
And I know what common desktop and smartphone designs are like: When Google draws a diagram of the "Android operating system", they include ALL the parts necessary to support a typical GUI application, and a few essential apps too.
End users don't care about any of that stuff. They want something with a single identity that is recognizable to THEM. What you defined is only recognizable to people like you and I. (And based on that, I would suggest Slashdotters stop referring to "Linux" as if could be a consumer desktop OS... it cannot be that any more than a transmission can be a car).
GNU/Linux is an OS with a CLI user interface. Android is an OS with a graphical user interface. They both have a Linux kernel. But just because some techies have long preferred to use the former as a desktop does not mean the latter kind of OS isn't possible. Nor does it mean that the definition of an OS ought to be stuck in the 1980s.
Please remember we are talking about the desktop arena. That means OS X and Windows set the standards and define what user expectations are.
XNU (in Mac OS X) is not an OS. Darwin is an OS without a GUI, it includes XNU like OS X does. But what defines OS X (and notice the "OS" in the name) to a great extent is the GUI. No GUI no OS X, and the same has been true for Windows for many years.
So there is your defacto definition of a consumer desktop OS: a GUI is expected.
GNU/Linux can keep right on going with its current formula with graphical interfaces being second class to all of the other hardware, inter-software and text interfaces. But other OSes incorporate GNU/Linux components while ditching the "Linux" identity and the hacker hostility towards graphics.
Bzzt! Wrong... The GUI is a significant part of what defines any consumer oriented OS. Your attitude promotes feature-instability on the desktop.
Its one of the reasons the Linux-based systems have such a hard time getting traction: The GUI stuff is treated as separate and second-class and can change from month to month. It prevents distros from being recognizable by end-users, and prevents robust vertical integration where its needed to make things convenient and understandable for the user.
And here I thought all the really important admin programs on RHEL were CLI or Web based.
The fact is that, yes, VNC is a horrific kludge so why is it required when several desktop users all want to have a meeting and view an app window at the same time? Why are we left with X11 or VNC as network choices, when both are very old and slow over the Internet?
The 2 big desktop OSes have supported efficient window sharing at the system level for years now.
Also, settings management on X11 implementations like x.org are a fiasco resulting in dark screens after system updates. There are myriad ways to describe and format a desired setup in the conf file, and none of the distro-specific display managers do a great job. X needs an API that will handle settings internally and provide a robust GUI display manager (though I suspect the likes of x.org have sworn off anything like that... writing a GUI app).
I hate having to wait 6+ months (or 2 years if you stick with LTS) to get app upgrades, so I switched to OS X for my laptop years ago. Still use Linux on servers though.
As for network transparency, Wayland is supposed to have that... it just won't be the antiquated kind of of networking that X11 does: Slow on the Internet without a clumsy add-on like NX, and no ability for more than one user to view a window at the same time without using VNC which is also antiquated and often too slow.
I agree with your emphasis on corporatism. However, corporatism is a natural result of a capitalism that permits "no alternatives" like social democracy, for instance. We need a political culture where it's OK for different political parties to win public approval for chartering business under different organizational models, within a democratic framework that doesn't allow the effective outlawing of any economic theories.
Because the out-of-the-box default behavior for every popular browser is to download everything referenced, pass whatever cookie it happens to have whenever it does that, execute every such downloaded script, and so on.
Facebook isn't really the problem here. Our browsers are.
What makes you think Wikileaks has the resources to acquire, vet, and redact a mountain of information for release with just the right timing? It seems clear to me they'll do what they can when they can.
Tor and I2P have PK addresses (for their.onion and.i2p domains respectively). They work well with random address assignment because they are a layer on top of the regular Internet. That's no problem at least for I2P: you keep the same.i2p address even if your regular IP address keeps changing.
As if nobody can snoop on, and redirect traffic, with tor...
Granted, but that's just Tor (and only with access to non-.onion domains). You can't do it with a network like I2P, because all destinations are.i2p (like.onion).
The other things that make I2P different besides the constant security are that its built to handle P2P transfers and it has no central authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they thought Tor was good enough.
...for comparison.
Or if you have the same as I've got below, please reply with a 'Yea'.
Here is the fingerprint of the ssh key I (eventually) got from the posted address:
2048 72:16:b8:6a:e4:02:6f:69:ac:b4:7a:6a:9e:00:f1:b0
There are networks that can handle extensive yanking (site censorship) and still deliver large files: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896338&cid=34448224
Unofficial Wikileaks mirror on I2P
Yes, the full link really is that long. That is because I2P does not fully rely on domain names... that b64 string is the site's public key which is also it's address.
* You need the I2P software (a FOSS project and free download) to use both of the above address. *
The announce thread for the I2P mirror is here.
Once the info for the new site propagates through the network, you can even access the I2P mirror *without* the I2P software using this URL. Of course, using this method you won't be anonymous.
A word about I2P: It's a network that provides anonymized IP-like communication using methods similar to Tor, but designed to handle torrents and other large loads efficiently. It is also less centralized than Tor, and taking down even 90% of the nodes (incl original ones) should still leave it running and accessible. It also has facilities for automatically mirroring files and sites. One downside is that configuring your browser to use the I2P Web is a manual process that must be done carefully. Overall though it seems to be pretty impressive.
And the actions of Amazon and many other corps play dirty with their customers when the State Dept or Pentagon tell them to. I don't think MS is any exception to that corporatist dynamic.
Unix (the free variants) can be fully audited down to the last bit if necessary (unusual/bar behavior can be much more easily explained and fixed with some investigative effort).
Windows is simply NOT up to dealing with high security needs.
...much better than FreeNet and Tor can. http://geti2p.net/
Many of the Wikileaks releases (including video files) have already been posted to I2P bittorrent trackers.
Sign the files and tell the key publicly?
You know you got the the right key when... ?
When you get it from A) a reputable keyserver, B) someone you trust who's known about Wikileaks for some time.
What in high heavens has the ego of Assange to do with anything?
Ego over-reaches. Ego makes mistakes. Ego is not to be trusted.
The simplest and safest way of dealing with a man like Assange is to wait until he self-destructs and takes Wikileaks down with him.
Yeah, the egos belong behind corporate news desks spouting half-truths, bold-faced lies and PR press releases. It makes for a longer, more satisfying career.
Talk about undoing your own work, huh?
Indeed. I wonder if the PDF viewer has a sandbox too. If not, then they could be opening up an even bigger can of worms!
What exactly was broken about the Unix "everything is a file" metaphor? Plan 9 seemed to get a long with with using that to describe windows.
Interesting. I remember the Amiga had quite a bit of that "WINDOW:0/0/400/100" to open a window with certain dimensions. Same for sound and speech and other things. The problem comes when you have to modify that object apart from the data stream... then you have to parse escape codes and translate from ASCII and polling for status info is difficult or impossible.
I see nothing wrong with modern OO APIs. The problem is that the FOSS hacker community will stand by interfaces used by their peers (remember, an interface is a "contract"), but they scream "freedom!" when it comes to committing to USER interfaces. These people do not make commitments to people they can't relate to, so end users get left twisting in the wind.
Actually, he pushed an incorrect assumption that operating systems don't include graphical interfaces (any other type of interface, but not graphics apparently).
I remember the Macintosh and Amiga and what their software architectures were like.
And I know what common desktop and smartphone designs are like: When Google draws a diagram of the "Android operating system", they include ALL the parts necessary to support a typical GUI application, and a few essential apps too.
End users don't care about any of that stuff. They want something with a single identity that is recognizable to THEM. What you defined is only recognizable to people like you and I. (And based on that, I would suggest Slashdotters stop referring to "Linux" as if could be a consumer desktop OS... it cannot be that any more than a transmission can be a car).
GNU/Linux is an OS with a CLI user interface. Android is an OS with a graphical user interface. They both have a Linux kernel. But just because some techies have long preferred to use the former as a desktop does not mean the latter kind of OS isn't possible. Nor does it mean that the definition of an OS ought to be stuck in the 1980s.
Please remember we are talking about the desktop arena. That means OS X and Windows set the standards and define what user expectations are.
XNU (in Mac OS X) is not an OS. Darwin is an OS without a GUI, it includes XNU like OS X does. But what defines OS X (and notice the "OS" in the name) to a great extent is the GUI. No GUI no OS X, and the same has been true for Windows for many years.
So there is your defacto definition of a consumer desktop OS: a GUI is expected.
GNU/Linux can keep right on going with its current formula with graphical interfaces being second class to all of the other hardware, inter-software and text interfaces. But other OSes incorporate GNU/Linux components while ditching the "Linux" identity and the hacker hostility towards graphics.
That the Singularity will not come for Ray Kurzweil?
Bzzt! Wrong... The GUI is a significant part of what defines any consumer oriented OS. Your attitude promotes feature-instability on the desktop.
Its one of the reasons the Linux-based systems have such a hard time getting traction: The GUI stuff is treated as separate and second-class and can change from month to month. It prevents distros from being recognizable by end-users, and prevents robust vertical integration where its needed to make things convenient and understandable for the user.
And here I thought all the really important admin programs on RHEL were CLI or Web based.
The fact is that, yes, VNC is a horrific kludge so why is it required when several desktop users all want to have a meeting and view an app window at the same time? Why are we left with X11 or VNC as network choices, when both are very old and slow over the Internet?
The 2 big desktop OSes have supported efficient window sharing at the system level for years now.
Also, settings management on X11 implementations like x.org are a fiasco resulting in dark screens after system updates. There are myriad ways to describe and format a desired setup in the conf file, and none of the distro-specific display managers do a great job. X needs an API that will handle settings internally and provide a robust GUI display manager (though I suspect the likes of x.org have sworn off anything like that... writing a GUI app).
I hate having to wait 6+ months (or 2 years if you stick with LTS) to get app upgrades, so I switched to OS X for my laptop years ago. Still use Linux on servers though.
As for network transparency, Wayland is supposed to have that... it just won't be the antiquated kind of of networking that X11 does: Slow on the Internet without a clumsy add-on like NX, and no ability for more than one user to view a window at the same time without using VNC which is also antiquated and often too slow.
They should rename it, and I don't mean a variation on Ubuntu like Kubuntu.
I agree with your emphasis on corporatism. However, corporatism is a natural result of a capitalism that permits "no alternatives" like social democracy, for instance. We need a political culture where it's OK for different political parties to win public approval for chartering business under different organizational models, within a democratic framework that doesn't allow the effective outlawing of any economic theories.
Because the out-of-the-box default behavior for every popular browser is to download everything referenced, pass whatever cookie it happens to have whenever it does that, execute every such downloaded script, and so on.
Facebook isn't really the problem here. Our browsers are.
I couldn't have said it any better!
What makes you think Wikileaks has the resources to acquire, vet, and redact a mountain of information for release with just the right timing? It seems clear to me they'll do what they can when they can.
Why does not Wikileaks post all their leaks on Freenet which is somewhat robust to DDoS _and_ provides great encryption and anonymity?
Someone is mirroring the data on I2P which is much faster and better than Freenet, IMO.
Tor and I2P have PK addresses (for their .onion and .i2p domains respectively). They work well with random address assignment because they are a layer on top of the regular Internet. That's no problem at least for I2P: you keep the same .i2p address even if your regular IP address keeps changing.
As if nobody can snoop on, and redirect traffic, with tor...
Granted, but that's just Tor (and only with access to non-.onion domains). You can't do it with a network like I2P, because all destinations are .i2p (like .onion).
The other things that make I2P different besides the constant security are that its built to handle P2P transfers and it has no central authorities.
I don't know why you would care about relay nodes.