For those who havent been keeping up with Tor, soon after Tor named its first female director, Shari Steele, a key male member, Tors figurehead Jacob Appelbaum, was accused by an employee (over twitter no less) of rape. Soon after other females within the project joined in and he was forced out without any due process or even legal charges.
This prompted a SJW narrative attack on the various tor social outlets to bury objections to the way this way handled. Since then things have gone downhill, no accountability or remorse has been shown by Tor management and the aggressors who levied their baseless complaints continue to work internally on Tor source code, while Jacob has had his career and life ruined (including ârapistâ being spray painted across the front of his apartment building right under his window).
Anyone following the news over the last decade has seen this attack before, as demonstrated against whistleblowers, journalists, politicians and even world bank leaders. It remains a government choice method for taking down opposition, destroying reputation, job, family and often freedom all in one baseless accusation. Peoples faith in Tor has been shaken and its highly likely US government operatives are either working within the Tor project or have under their control those who do.
If safenet succeeds in its planned design it will outperform Tor in terms of anonymity but Tor still offers access to the clearnet and safenet doesnt, will it have this feature? Will it be possible for it to given its design?
hmmmm - with messaging in place i donât see why there shouldnât be safenet-exit-nodes as services on safenet ⌠i donât see what possibly could prevent that âŚ
so iâd (naivly) say 100% possible and if people are willing to pay for it 0 chance it wonât appear
(but iâm no network specialist ⌠only a medium talented electrical engineer)
Tor has both anonymous access to clearnet, and hidden services. The hidden services are a bit of a makeshift since they are just web servers configured to only communicate over Tor.
SAFEnetâs design makes it ideal for a hidden service âwebsiteâ because there is no web server. Traffic analysis can be expected to be much harder.
Those hidden services will include commercial services, selling physical or virtual goods.
With SAFEnet, itâs anonymous access to clearnet that becomes the makeshift add-on.
I foresee that whistleblower websites on SAFEnet will be hidden services and not clearnet sites accessed anonymously. They will have contact forms and chat that are SAFEnet services themselves, with no traffic going to clearnet. That is good because it seems likely (to me) that some, maybe most, of the free email services on Tor are honeypots.
The final category of Tor users would be people who simply want to visit sites anonymously for infiormation, in read-only fashion, which includes pervert sites. It seems likely that they too will tend to migrate entirely onto SAFEnet.
Maybe someone with solid technical knowledge of SAFEnet can weigh in â IMO SAFEnet is secure/anon for file storage and retrieval, but that doesnât translate into secure/anon for sending through to peers on the network ⌠i.e. does âdirectâ messaging/data-xfer route through many points or is it actually direct? If itâs actually direct, then it wouldnât be anonymous and hence you couldnât use SAFEnet securely/anonymously as an outproxy.
Personally, I think that the clearnet must die - but I can see the allure of using outproxy tech on SAFEnet to boost uptake of the network - I just donât know how secure such a thing would be. If it is secure/anon hypothetically though, then someone will build an add-on to allow for outproxying as that would be a no-brainer.
Theyâre cowards who only act aggressively from a position of perceived safety (overwhelming numbers, government protection, anonymous phone calls). The males particularly are limp accessories hoping to curry favor with those things. I would so dearly like to meet any of them in a street confrontation.
I once saw a video of a bunch of those masked punks jostling some alt-right speaker*, a mild-mannered fellow who was just trying to get past them, and it amused me to consider what I would do and just how I would do it, and the resulting screams.
* Iâm not alt-right, but still, it offended me to see it.
First off, yes, nothing would prevent a service to provide exit-node-like behavior by using the messaging system. However that sounds more trivial than it really is: you essentially need to reimplement up to multiple versions of the HTTP protocol through messaging - not an easy task. But even then, messaging isnât a real-time API and the latency will probably be ugly. Further more, you can only message once you signed up, so unlike TOR the exit nodes, it can de-anonymize the sender. Not really what youâd want.
But Iâd also join the chorus in challenging the usefulness of such an approach. Even through TOR you are never surfing anonymously because of tracking cookies and alike. I consider this the main weakness of TOR: it tries to use the clearnet - with all its problems. Problems which safenet tackles and solves. TOR is an extended service for clearnet, safenet is the internets next generation. An as such safenets guarantees for privacy and such do not apply to the clearnet. Out of that Iâd argue safenet shouldnât provide an exit at all.
However, it is clear safenet and clearnet will have to live side by side for a while. But Iâd argue we should understand this as a backwards compatibility support from safenet. So rather than allowing an exit to clearnet (where we canât give gurantees), Iâd promote to have an access (public proxy) into safenet instead. Allowing anyone to access content on safenet even from clearnet - there we can give the same gurantees (from our side).
Thank you OP for the post and review. Hopefully the MS folks are not even on the radar for the players that approve a budget to run that kind of operation. Although if and when SAFE garners that kind of interest level hopefully their central control of the network and updating mechanisms is long gone.
Either way, it is always important to remember if you are someone working on something that empowers individuals and freedom, then it would be prudent to avoid any situations that could be exploited. Rape is a real tough one because of the polarity of the problem. Woman or men who suffer from true violence diserve recourse and the flip side is the victim of innocent accused. Best approach is to gather some evidence of consent both consenting parties have access to.
http://reddit.com/r/Tor, the appelbaum megathread is pinned at the top, its a combination of different threads, a bit of correct information in between the SJW troll posts, all jumbled up. http://blog.torproject.org had the initial firing announcement and more recently their âchange of policyâ coverup regarding this, inbetween those two was a âwere suddenly changing our entire board of directors for reasons that were not going to explain to you peonsâ post.
Appelbaum made a statement (its probably linked somewhere in the megathread) stating that this was a coup to out him and that he had not raped the entire female staff of the torproject as they had claimed.
Apparently there was some interaction between him and one of the female staff members he acknowledged, it was unclear what that was, perhaps an office romance gone wrong, jealous ex, etc⌠but that the woman in question said they had prior sexual history, so its likely she leveraged this to achieve ulterior motives.
