Indeed.
This is very unlikely once the network has reached critical mass. Even before then, it would be extremely unlikely. Churn would hurt timing analysis and the chunks in question would likely not be on the targets’ machine when the knock comes. Even if they were to find the chunk on the targets computer, given the fact that anyone at any time could have that same chunk on their computer and the inherent inaccuracy of timing analysis, it would be very difficult to prove with certainty that the target is indeed the one whose computer served the chunk.
If they went on to analyze the hard drive and find other illegal chunks, it could be argued that the file wasn’t served to anyone. It’s just passing through the targets machine as a result of the designed flow of the network.
in response to:
The general population knowing the guarantee of permanence of their files, would after the affair, likely do quick inquiries on the internet as they often do for even the most mundane topics, discover that SAFE is fine to use. Look at the silk road bust. It was all over the place. Still we have roughly 3 million Tor users and that’s without the benefits of permanent storage and super simple cheap maintenance free website hosting SAFE offers. The odds are good my friend.
Anything below 100% accuracy can be argued against. SAFE unlike other systems doesn’t keep data on your system permanently with exception to archive nodes whose data is not being accessed by anyone (when touched, the data is on the move again). The transient nature of the files on the network makes plausible deniability a strong defense.
In response to:
Again latency due to natural artificial churn decreases the accuracy of analysis. It would be hard to prove the true source. On top of that, bundling of chunks could be introduced to further hamper analysis.
So what? Firstly, your data will be moving in many different direction away from you. Secondly, even if you could watch where it goes, it wouldn’t be there for long.
At the moment the only issue I could see is the shitty UK precedent of holding relays responsible for data transferred. Then again if the investigator requested the chunks, there might be an entrapment defense as they cannot prove that the relay has passed the chunk to anyone.else before then. It could also be argued that the chunk would have never passed through the relay to a general requester if it had never been requested by the investigators. So I think there are grounds for dismissal here.
Agreed. They’re many unknowns but like Firefox or any other self updating application, the hurdle is low. I believe most users like to keep their software updated and jump at the chance to see shiny new features. Knowing they are using software that prioritizes security, would motivate them to update. You don’t have to be a geek to appreciate the benefits of security in the same way a driver doesn’t have to be a mechanic to take their vehicle in for maintenance in the hopes of safeguarding their lives and improving the life span of their vehicle.