Do you really think you can stop people from developping or using encryption or anonymity? There a rumours Ben Laden uses steganography - should we ban all.GIF's and JPEG's on the web?
Most employeess at ZKS believe in protecting our rights, and in preserving privacy versus what is perceived by many as intrusions of a police state future into what was otherwise a "free" internet. As Phil Zimmerman said:, "if you ban strong crypto only the terrorists and criminals will have access to it."
Given the current context, that's probably the best thing they could have done. The full anonymity multiple tunnels provided by the freedom servers had a huge cost of upkeep for ZKS, one which the revenues of the freedom product never could reach. Most users of Freedom were hardcore privacy advocates, but ZKS needed to tap into a larger market to make the Freedom net profitable. But in wake Sep11, the case for strong crypto anonymity is even harder to sell to the masses. So no user base = can the network.
I haven't read-up on Freedom 3.0 - yet, but I hope ZKS can still provide a simple http/https anonymous proxy gateway, it wouldn't be nearly as secure as onion-routing but would still provide minimal anonymity versus mundane threats like mass-marketers, identity theft, etc...
Sorry, but it is about java. The diversionary tactic is the open-source/gpl thing. And perhaps a bit of Divide & conquer in trying to push FreeBSD (and the BSd license) v.s. linux (and GPL) to split the open-source community.
But the real aim is to maximize C# & the CLI over Java, and to keep it "closed-platform".
Look at all of today's ecommerce applications - Appservers, JSp, J2EE, & Beans. Programmer mindshare or not, C# and.NET is their java killer. Despite trying everything in the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" guidebook, M$ hasn't successfully killed cross-platform netapps. And that must irk Redmond some. Now Imagine if all the BEA's and WebSphere's of the world were to only run C# servlets, which would be accessible only using proprietary (e.g. licensed by MS) CLI's ?
Then everything is platform dependant again, all of a sudden, and we're back to a game of monopoly, square 1.
the full linux sourcecode for version 2.1 is still avalaible at http://opensource.zero-knowledge.com. According to Zero's latest
Some caveats:
- The 2.1 client is ip-chains based, it won't run on kernels 2.4, etc...
- it comes w/ about 10 kernel shims for RH6.2, Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera, etc. If you don't run a "stock" kernel, you will have to compile the kernel shim, it's fairly simple, (ie make config)
- it won't run/coexist w/ stuff like ipsec, or VMWare - for obvious reasons.
- You must have the standard gtk libs installed, a better idea is to get Helix gnome.
- Freedom linux cannot be run as root, and it only anonymizes the current user (multiuser), if you su as someone else - you're in the clear.
it's funny, but sometimes it seems ZKS gets the most flak from slashdotters, of all places. But I think it's wasn't modded' up mostly because it's now too old... (after a half a day)
I can confirm it's definately for VC/economic reasons. There's been a product shift away from the end-user Freedom product and towards "enterprise privacy services" - where the real money is perceived to be.
In light of that, the cost of developping and supporting the linux clients accross different distros/kernel configs was just not worth the perceived revenue.
Incidentally, WTF is with ignorant Slashdotters painting ZK as a Windows shop??? ALL the developpers at ZKS are linux developpers, what did you guys think the Freedom network and back-ends ran on??? It's a shame Mike Shaver (previously of Netscape/Mozilla) and Zach Brown (of RedHat) aren't there anymore or they'd tell you a different story.
That's good, but I wanted to point out that P3P, like almost everything coming out of the privacy space is just smoke and mirrors.
P3P will allow a company to *describe* it's privacy policies versus every element/form/ or page on their site. It's a start, and will be the glue to enable a privacy "UI"'s. What it won't do is provide any means of enforcement. That is, just becasue site "x" says we don't divulge your purchase habits doesn't mean you can trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
Resident Evil 2/3 for PSX. And Parasite Eve 2.
I am an ex-ZKS employee, and you - are a troll.
.GIF's and JPEG's on the web?
Do you really think you can stop people from developping or using encryption or anonymity? There a rumours Ben Laden uses steganography - should we ban all
Most employeess at ZKS believe in protecting our rights, and in preserving privacy versus what is perceived by many as intrusions of a police state future into what was otherwise a "free" internet. As Phil Zimmerman said:, "if you ban strong crypto only the terrorists and criminals will have access to it."
Given the current context, that's probably the best thing they could have done. The full anonymity multiple tunnels provided by the freedom servers had a huge cost of upkeep for ZKS, one which the revenues of the freedom product never could reach. Most users of Freedom were hardcore privacy advocates, but ZKS needed to tap into a larger market to make the Freedom net profitable. But in wake Sep11, the case for strong crypto anonymity is even harder to sell to the masses. So no user base = can the network.
I haven't read-up on Freedom 3.0 - yet, but I hope ZKS can still provide a simple http/https anonymous proxy gateway, it wouldn't be nearly as secure as onion-routing but would still provide minimal anonymity versus mundane threats like mass-marketers, identity theft, etc...
Cheers,
Mathieu Khor
Sorry, but it is about java. The diversionary tactic is the open-source/gpl thing. And perhaps a bit of Divide & conquer in trying to push FreeBSD (and the BSd license) v.s. linux (and GPL) to split the open-source community.
.NET is their java killer. Despite trying everything in the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" guidebook, M$ hasn't successfully killed cross-platform netapps. And that must irk Redmond some. Now Imagine if all the BEA's and WebSphere's of the world were to only run C# servlets, which would be accessible only using proprietary (e.g. licensed by MS) CLI's ?
But the real aim is to maximize C# & the CLI over Java, and to keep it "closed-platform".
Look at all of today's ecommerce applications - Appservers, JSp, J2EE, & Beans. Programmer mindshare or not, C# and
Then everything is platform dependant again, all of a sudden, and we're back to a game of monopoly, square 1.
the full linux sourcecode for version 2.1 is still avalaible at http://opensource.zero-knowledge.com. According to Zero's latest
Some caveats:
- The 2.1 client is ip-chains based, it won't run on kernels 2.4, etc...
- it comes w/ about 10 kernel shims for RH6.2, Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera, etc. If you don't run a "stock" kernel, you will have to compile the kernel shim, it's fairly simple, (ie make config)
- it won't run/coexist w/ stuff like ipsec, or VMWare - for obvious reasons.
- You must have the standard gtk libs installed, a better idea is to get Helix gnome.
- Freedom linux cannot be run as root, and it only anonymizes the current user (multiuser), if you su as someone else - you're in the clear.
thanks,
it's funny, but sometimes it seems ZKS gets the most flak from slashdotters, of all places. But I think it's wasn't modded' up mostly because it's now too old... (after a half a day)
Cheers,
disclaimer: I am an ex- ZKS employee.
I can confirm it's definately for VC/economic reasons. There's been a product shift away from the end-user Freedom product and towards "enterprise privacy services" - where the real money is perceived to be.
In light of that, the cost of developping and supporting the linux clients accross different distros/kernel configs was just not worth the perceived revenue.
Incidentally, WTF is with ignorant Slashdotters painting ZK as a Windows shop??? ALL the developpers at ZKS are linux developpers, what did you guys think the Freedom network and back-ends ran on??? It's a shame Mike Shaver (previously of Netscape/Mozilla) and Zach Brown (of RedHat) aren't there anymore or they'd tell you a different story.
Cheers
mathieu khor
That's good, but I wanted to point out that P3P, like almost everything coming out of the privacy space is just smoke and mirrors.
P3P will allow a company to *describe* it's privacy policies versus every element/form/ or page on their site. It's a start, and will be the glue to enable a privacy "UI"'s. What it won't do is provide any means of enforcement. That is, just becasue site "x" says we don't divulge your purchase habits doesn't mean you can trust them.