They are totally making an example of Julian for any other whistle-blowers out there. The Safe Network could protect people and media organizations in the future from being identified, tracked and imprisoned.
7 Likes
In a world where we have a Safe network, Google would have had to politely ask for access to your data. Which you could have revoked at any point if they misbehaved…
8 Likes
5 Likes
4 Likes
If your ISP will block everything you are disconnected from SAFE Network. No connection = no SAFE.
Yes, true enough. Reading the article it looks as though they’ve shut everything down. ISPs are the weakest link.
That’s true more, but SAFE is not just a network, but a network that has a built in mechanism for rewarding those who provide resources.
That can be extended to connectivity, so it can and I believe will be able to address the issue with ISPs being a weak point. We can all be an ISP.
10 Likes
You mean mesh network ? Maybe if all people would be willing to share own Wi-Fi/mobile LTE they could win. But P2P would not have any shortcuts with main hubs, so 100+hops, lags and some bottlenecks…But I agree than better than nothing.
Edit: Maybe it is not that bad, if big part of traffic until main ISP servers can still use ISP infrastructure.
Yeh, but if you can earn lots by setting up cross border ‘pipes’ and these start popping up it quickly becomes hard for a centralised authority to block. I can imagine them being set up with solar panels or piggy backed into power suppliers, and left on top of buildings etc - guerrilla internet!
Even if it’s a bit slow or intermittent, that’s enough to make censorship ineffective.
2 Likes
I like that! The way I see it, we are all at war - now. Control vs. Liberty. And modern wars are not fought using guns that go bang, but instead silent computers. Guns are for hunting animals for food. Information technology, not guns, is for self-defense against people.
1 Like
Don’t forget that Safe breaks apart data and spreads it over XOR space + redundancy. If the network scales well, both up and down in size, then may be able to accommodate for smaller pipes across a network. It’s not like Tor, I2P, Freenet, etc, where the all the data comes though one pipe.
So the hard bottleneck is, hypothetically, hardware and mesh connectivity software IMO - how many are you connected to at once - i.e. what are the limits of the particular mesh.
At least that’s how I understand it.
1 Like
A media platform terminating user accounts because they aren’t “profitable” enough.
4 Likes
I’ve not seen an explanation as to why 5g is of greater risk than previous generations, eg 4g 3g … I’m guessing that it’s easier to intercept 5g as it bounces around a lot and requires higher power output to reach it’s destination. The other possibility, especially given the US’s promoted view that the tech has been corrupted via the Chinese government is that the tech coming out of China has backdoors in it.
From what I understand of wireless tech, the basic level of encryption is untrustworthy if the signal is intercepted from the beginning (when the encryption is initiated), so in order to use any wireless tech successfully you need to be using keys that weren’t openly traded via that wireless connection. So Safe would be safe as would things like pgp.
Backdoors are also a problem in that you can hook into the signal at any point - keys handed to you via the backdoor. But again if using Safe, no problem as everything is encrypted fully before even reaching this level.
Anyone know of other spy threats related to 5g specifically?
2 Likes
5g penetrates less distance past your dead skin cells than 4g which is less than 3g
The higher the frequency the less penetration.
Improvements in receivers means we need less total power
8 Likes
True, less penetration, because more absorption i.e. lower freq., pass right through many materials, while higher freq. are absorbed more easily. edit: except some surfaces e.g. metal surfaces that reflect some %.
After some quick research I agree about power levels as I think more base stations are being put in place to reduce distances and transmitters and receivers are both more efficient.
3 Likes
At 5G the top layer of (DEAD) skin cells are the only affected cells
Lower power means less energy than 4G anyhow
Not by the body. Radio waves like MW or FM radio do not go through the body and so you acknowledge they are totally absorbed.
The point is that after over 100 years of radio waves there has been no health insurance claims or reported peer reviewed case of humans getting sick.
Now ever since mobile phones have come out there has been loud cries of the dangers but no cases. Initially the power was extremely high, continuous 3W, 4G was like 3W for a few milli seconds. (1/25 the power) and since 5G takes less time for transferring the data for voice its like 1/50 the power of the original phones and since the original phones penetrated passed the skin layer and caused no cancers etc then I’d say you have no troubles with 1/25 (4g) or 1/50 (5g) that do not even enter the body
That is because the 5G just does not travel far enough.
Your 5G WiFi at home does not go as far as the 2.4G WiFi and the same is for the 5G mobile does not go as far as 4G. Air humidity, walls etc reduce the distance reached by 5G more than for 4G
5 Likes
Just to clarify so nobody is confused - the WiFi is 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. The 4G and 5G mobile networks are 4th and 5th generation. 5G uses a variety of frequencies, including 3.5 GHz and up to 300 GHz.
Not sure if that’s the main concern, or if it’s more about our society being more reliant on it. More devices can connect to a 5G network, so it is expected that IoT will grow a lot with 5G. So instead of foreign powers being able to make people’s cell phones stop working as on 4G, they’d be able to disrupt a wide range of infrastructure.
5 Likes
Yes I should have been clearer
1 Like
Just to clarify, I meant a greater security risk … I don’t know why anyone has health concerns about 5G … all seems a bit silly to me. As @neo pointed out, the higher freq. waves of 5G don’t penetrate deeply, so if anything, probably safer than 3g, 4g.
It seems to be the main concern being promoted by the US government (security that is).
1 Like