Freenet seems to come to mind.. :) On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-06-24, Randall Smith <rand...@tnr.cc> wrote: > > On 06/24/2015 01:29 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2015-06-24, Randall Smith <rand...@tnr.cc> wrote: > >>> On 06/24/2015 06:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>> > >>>> I don't understand how mangling the data is supposed to protect the > >>>> recipient. Don't they have the ability unmangle the data, and thus > >>>> expose themselves to whatever nasties are in the files? > >>> > >>> They never look at the data and wouldn't care to unmangle it. > >> > >> I obviously don't "get it". If the recipient is never going look at > >> the data or unmangle it, why not convert every received file to a > >> single null byte? That way you save on disk space as well -- > >> especially if you just create links for all files after the initial > >> one. ;) > > > > These are machines storing chunks of other people's data. The data > > owner chunks a file, compresses and encrypts it, then sends it to > > several storage servers. The storage server might be a Raspberry PI > > with a USB disk or a Windows XP machine - I can't know which. > > OK. But if the recipient (the server) mangles the data and then never > unmangles or reads the data, there doesn't seem to be any point in > storing it. I must be misunderstanding your statement that the data > is never read/unmangled. > > -- > Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! A can of ASPARAGUS, > at 73 pigeons, some LIVE > ammo, > gmail.com and a FROZEN DAQUIRI!! > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list