Happy Earth Overshoot Day...
...you fools https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/08/01/2041251/earth-overshoot-day-came-early-this-year-thats-a-bad-thing https://www.popsci.com/earth-overshoot-day-2018 https://www.overshootday.org/about-earth-overshoot-day/ https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/08/01/028255/judge-blocks-release-of-blueprints-for-3d-printed-guns
latest NSA offering?
https://protonvpn.com/support/linux-vpn-setup/
Re: latest NSA offering?
On 08/02/2018 01:46 PM, juan wrote: > > > > https://protonvpn.com/support/linux-vpn-setup/ You never know ;) So have y'all heard any more about the cat fight between PIA-cofounder rasengan and ProtonVPN? The protonmail account on HN basically claimed that PIA cooperates with the Chinese government.[0] And that this accounts for the fact that the GFW wasn't blocking PIA as thoroughly as other VPN services. And that presumably triggered rasengan's attack on ProtonVPN and NordVPN.[0,1] He's criticized both for failing to disclose connections to Tesonet. And he's characterized Tesonet as a data-mining service, riffing on their competitive-intelligence pitch. Tesonet is apparently an enterprise VPN service, in Vilnius, which focuses on B2B competitive intelligence. So maybe the allegations regarding ProtonVPN and NordVPN are misleading. I mean, Tesonet is serving data miners, but is arguably not data-mining its own customers. And any VPN service could data-mine its customers ;) But it is quite the cat fight :) And really, it'd be amusing if PIA actually were China-centric. That'd arguably make them _more_ secure for those concerned about the NSA. 0) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17254113 1) https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/anyone-using-protonmail.394862/page-2 (near the end)
This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/\× Connectivity This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches Augur lets people bet on events and pays whoever gets it right—so of course they’re wagering on the deaths of Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos. * by Mike Orcutt * August 2, 2018 Augur, a new blockchain-based prediction market platform, is getting a lot of media attention because people are using it to predict the deaths of celebrities. But despite fears that the rise of “assassination markets” could inspire real killings, the more urgent problem Augur presents is something else entirely. 1. This piece first appeared in our twice-weekly newsletter Chain Letter, which covers the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Sign up here—it’s free! Really, people saw these sorts of “death pools” coming decades ago, and blockchains, with their decentralized networks and (potentially) anonymous transactions, serve as an ideal platform. Augur’s open-source software relies on blockchain-based computer programs called smart contracts to let users set up their own prediction markets that automatically pool cryptocurrency bets and distribute winnings without the need for participants to identify themselves. Perfect for ginning up interest in offing someone by guaranteeing a payday to whoever does the deed, at least in theory. Predictably, the protocol, which launched July 10, has already led to markets for forecasting the demise of Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Betty White, and others. But these markets have seen very few transactions, and the amounts wagered have been tiny, making it unlikely they’d inspire someone to engage in foul play. Nevertheless, Augur may already be facilitating illegal activity that could prove far more troublesome. In the US, prediction markets are generally not permitted. Federal and state laws prohibit online gambling, and “in many ways the line between prediction markets and gambling is not that clear,” says Aaron Wright, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City. Further, some Augur contracts allow users to bet on the future value of something, such as Ether cryptocurrency. That sounds a lot like a type of investment called a binary option, which is unlawful to list without approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 2012, the CFTC sued Intrade, an Ireland-based prediction market, accusing it of permitting US users to trade binary options, and eventually a judge blocked Intrade from offering the contracts in the US. Sure enough, Augur already has the CFTC’s attention. But even if the agency decides that Augur is breaking the law, how will it enforce that decision? Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users choose to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from occurring?” When Napster, Limewire, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing networks started slinging music, movies, and other files around the internet two decades ago, they created similar law enforcement headaches. But in each case there was an entity that could be sued for copyright infringement. Software like Augur, which is open-source, freely downloadable, and run on a blockchain, presents genuinely new challenges, says Wright. That doesn’t mean laws can’t be applied—just that they’ll need to be applied in different ways. For instance, if officials were to rule that Augur was facilitating illicit activity, they might try to go after the people who developed the software, much as malware developers have been held liable for their creations, says Wright. That would be likely to set up a fight over First Amendment protections. Prosecutors could also try to target the users who keep the protocol running. Called “reporters,” they use Augur’s tradable crypto-token, REP, to report outcomes and are rewarded with more tokens if their reports are consistent with the larger consensus. There are potentially other avenues, as well, says Wright: “Just because there is no center doesn’t mean there aren’t indirect ways to attack lawless activity.” Keep up with the latest in blockchain at EmTech MIT. Discover where tech, business, and culture converge. September 11-14, 2018 MIT Media Lab
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
"Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users choose to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from occurring?” This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/\ > × > > > Connectivity > > This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause > Napster-size legal headaches > Augur lets people bet on events and pays whoever gets it right—so of > course they’re wagering on the deaths of Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos. > > * by Mike Orcutt > * August 2, 2018 > > Augur, a new blockchain-based prediction market platform, is getting a lot > of media attention because people are using it to predict the deaths of > celebrities. But despite fears that the rise of “assassination markets” > could inspire real killings, the more urgent problem Augur presents is > something else entirely. > > 1. > This piece first appeared in our twice-weekly newsletter Chain Letter, > which covers the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Sign up > here—it’s free! > > Really, people saw these sorts of “death pools” coming decades ago, and > blockchains, with their decentralized networks and (potentially) anonymous > transactions, serve as an ideal platform. Augur’s open-source software > relies on blockchain-based computer programs called smart contracts to let > users set up their own prediction markets that automatically pool > cryptocurrency bets and distribute winnings without the need for > participants to identify themselves. Perfect for ginning up interest in > offing someone by guaranteeing a payday to whoever does the deed, at least > in theory. Predictably, the protocol, which launched July 10, has already > led to markets for forecasting the demise of Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, > Warren Buffett, Betty White, and others. But these markets have seen very > few transactions, and the amounts wagered have been tiny, making it > unlikely they’d inspire someone to engage in foul play. > > Nevertheless, Augur may already be facilitating illegal activity that > could prove far more troublesome. > > In the US, prediction markets are generally not permitted. Federal and > state laws prohibit online gambling, and “in many ways the line between > prediction markets and gambling is not that clear,” says Aaron Wright, a > professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City. Further, > some Augur contracts allow users to bet on the future value of something, > such as Ether cryptocurrency. That sounds a lot like a type of investment > called a binary option, which is unlawful to list without approval from the > Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 2012, the CFTC sued Intrade, an > Ireland-based prediction market, accusing it of permitting US users to > trade binary options, and eventually a judge blocked Intrade from offering > the contracts in the US. > > Sure enough, Augur already has the CFTC’s attention. But even if the > agency decides that Augur is breaking the law, how will it enforce that > decision? Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its > users choose to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This > creates a problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, > who recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > occurring?” > > When Napster, Limewire, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing networks > started slinging music, movies, and other files around the internet two > decades ago, they created similar law enforcement headaches. But in each > case there was an entity that could be sued for copyright infringement. > Software like Augur, which is open-source, freely downloadable, and run on > a blockchain, presents genuinely new challenges, says Wright. > > That doesn’t mean laws can’t be applied—just that they’ll need to be > applied in different ways. For instance, if officials were to rule that > Augur was facilitating illicit activity, they might try to go after the > people who developed the software, much as malware developers have been > held liable for their creations, says Wright. That would be likely to set > up a fight over First Amendment protections. Prosecutors could also try to > target the users who keep the protocol running. Called “reporters,” they > use Augur’s tradable crypto-token, REP, to report outcomes and are rewarded > with more tokens if their
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote: > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users choose > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > occurring?” > > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature. Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point! But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example. > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > >> >> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
Can't see them scaring the developers into submission as its OS and any attempt to change the code and architecture to thwart its intent will simply cause a fork. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/\ > × > > > Connectivity > > This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause > Napster-size legal headaches > Augur lets people bet on events and pays whoever gets it right—so of > course they’re wagering on the deaths of Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos. > > * by Mike Orcutt > * August 2, 2018 > > Augur, a new blockchain-based prediction market platform, is getting a lot > of media attention because people are using it to predict the deaths of > celebrities. But despite fears that the rise of “assassination markets” > could inspire real killings, the more urgent problem Augur presents is > something else entirely. > > 1. > This piece first appeared in our twice-weekly newsletter Chain Letter, > which covers the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Sign up > here—it’s free! > > Really, people saw these sorts of “death pools” coming decades ago, and > blockchains, with their decentralized networks and (potentially) anonymous > transactions, serve as an ideal platform. Augur’s open-source software > relies on blockchain-based computer programs called smart contracts to let > users set up their own prediction markets that automatically pool > cryptocurrency bets and distribute winnings without the need for > participants to identify themselves. Perfect for ginning up interest in > offing someone by guaranteeing a payday to whoever does the deed, at least > in theory. Predictably, the protocol, which launched July 10, has already > led to markets for forecasting the demise of Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, > Warren Buffett, Betty White, and others. But these markets have seen very > few transactions, and the amounts wagered have been tiny, making it > unlikely they’d inspire someone to engage in foul play. > > Nevertheless, Augur may already be facilitating illegal activity that > could prove far more troublesome. > > In the US, prediction markets are generally not permitted. Federal and > state laws prohibit online gambling, and “in many ways the line between > prediction markets and gambling is not that clear,” says Aaron Wright, a > professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City. Further, > some Augur contracts allow users to bet on the future value of something, > such as Ether cryptocurrency. That sounds a lot like a type of investment > called a binary option, which is unlawful to list without approval from the > Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 2012, the CFTC sued Intrade, an > Ireland-based prediction market, accusing it of permitting US users to > trade binary options, and eventually a judge blocked Intrade from offering > the contracts in the US. > > Sure enough, Augur already has the CFTC’s attention. But even if the > agency decides that Augur is breaking the law, how will it enforce that > decision? Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its > users choose to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This > creates a problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, > who recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > occurring?” > > When Napster, Limewire, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing networks > started slinging music, movies, and other files around the internet two > decades ago, they created similar law enforcement headaches. But in each > case there was an entity that could be sued for copyright infringement. > Software like Augur, which is open-source, freely downloadable, and run on > a blockchain, presents genuinely new challenges, says Wright. > > That doesn’t mean laws can’t be applied—just that they’ll need to be > applied in different ways. For instance, if officials were to rule that > Augur was facilitating illicit activity, they might try to go after the > people who developed the software, much as malware developers have been > held liable for their creations, says Wright. That would be likely to set > up a fight over First Amendment protections. Prosecutors could also try to > target the users who keep the protocol running. Called “reporters,” they > use Augur’s tradable crypto-token, REP, to report outcomes and are rewarded > with more tokens if their reports are consistent with the larger consensus. > There are potentially other avenues, as well, says Wright: “Just because > there is no center doesn’t mean there aren’t indirect ways to attack > lawless activity.” > Keep up with the latest in blockchain at EmTech MIT. > > Discover where tech, business, and culture converge. > > Septemb
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Mirimir wrote: > On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote: > > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users choose > > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a > > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who > > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running > > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > > occurring?” > > > > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature. > > Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point! > > But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument > that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries > can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example. Free speech (free from censorship and arbitrary punishment against 'speech the state does not like') depends on anonymity, which depends on the transport - e.g. localised face to face conversation on the beach (and no sand bugs in your ears), or some form of mesh networking. At the very least, for digital anonymity, trusted entry nodes to a network, some number (math math) of trusted peer nodes (if all your entry node's peers are untrusted and say kill your link simultaneously, or in symmetric semi-rapid succession, they will likely be able to correlate your communication) and chaff fill links. 'Till then... pigs ain't flyin'. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > > > >> > >> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/ > > >
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
Freenet seems to work when you predominantly or solely use private/dark peers. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 4:28 PM Mirimir wrote: > On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote: > > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users > choose > > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a > > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who > > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are running > > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > > occurring?” > > > > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature. > > Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point! > > But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument > that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries > can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example. > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > > > >> > >> > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/ > > > >
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
I've been waiting for Loopix, or a similar, anonymity overlay to go into widespread testing but it's seems to be stillborn. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 4:38 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Mirimir wrote: > > On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote: > > > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users > choose > > > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a > > > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who > > > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > > > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are > running > > > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > > > occurring?” > > > > > > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature. > > > > Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point! > > > > But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument > > that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries > > can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example. > > Free speech (free from censorship and arbitrary punishment against > 'speech the state does not like') depends on anonymity, which depends > on the transport - e.g. localised face to face conversation on the > beach (and no sand bugs in your ears), or some form of mesh > networking. > > At the very least, for digital anonymity, trusted entry nodes to a > network, some number (math math) of trusted peer nodes (if all your > entry node's peers are untrusted and say kill your link > simultaneously, or in symmetric semi-rapid succession, they will > likely be able to correlate your communication) and chaff fill links. > > 'Till then... pigs ain't flyin'. > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/ > > > > > > >
Re: This new Ethereum-based “assassination market” platform could cause Napster-size legal headaches MIT Technology Review Article
God, the chaff fill concept is so dang simple - every time period T, send as many packets to PO(outgoing_bandwidth) to link endoint, if insufficient packets to send, send pseudo random chaff fill packets to get up to PO. That's the outgoing side. The incoming side is of course similar: over T, shape down to PI, dropping packets beyond that limit (+/- S 'slack' packets I guess). SIE (incoming packet shortage event): If PI is deficient, lower incoming rate PI (and notify endpoint of course). Rate reliability of endpoints based on SIE counts per time period RT (reliability analysis time period) - which might also be multi-layered (term?) i.e. do SIE analysis over multiple relevant time periods, e.g. 1s, 10s, 1m, 10m, 1hr. Simple (i.e. asynchronous) event/message protocol to request bandwidth, offer bandwidth in response to request, and offer bandwidth pre-emptively, including time parameters of duration (offer to guarantee rate PI/PO for T, or "best effort"). Best effort might be suitable for some requestors, insufficient for others - make the requests you require, offer what you can, meet your contracts when made, rate those endpoints who fail in their contracts, possibly also include "allegations" (i.e. ratings as made by peers about other peers they've had experience - obviously allegations would carry less weight than personal/own-node experiences, yet, as in the torrent world, may well be useful to improve overall network characteristics. The more fundamental issue with Tor is its currently TCP only design. I2P is therefore probably a better starting point for chaff fill - everything else can be layered on top of ethernet, IP and/ or UDP. Good luck, On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 04:43:20PM -0700, Steven Schear wrote: > I've been waiting for Loopix, or a similar, anonymity overlay to go into > widespread testing but it's seems to be stillborn. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 4:38 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Mirimir wrote: > > > On 08/02/2018 04:14 PM, Steven Schear wrote: > > > > "Augur’s creators claim they don’t have control over what its users > > choose > > > > to do with the protocol—or the ability to shut it down. This creates a > > > > problem that is “endemic” to blockchain technology, says Wright, who > > > > recently co-wrote a book on the subject: “If you do not have a very > > > > concrete intermediary—i.e., a company or group of people that are > > running > > > > the marketplace—how do you apply laws and prevent that activity from > > > > occurring?” > > > > > > > > This is, as they say in marketing, not a problem but a feature. > > > > > > Yep. I mean, that's the fucking point! > > > > > > But I gotta say, they need to work on the anonymity aspect. The argument > > > that participation anonymity doesn't matter, as long as adversaries > > > can't attribute stuff, is weak. Look at Freenet, for example. > > > > Free speech (free from censorship and arbitrary punishment against > > 'speech the state does not like') depends on anonymity, which depends > > on the transport - e.g. localised face to face conversation on the > > beach (and no sand bugs in your ears), or some form of mesh > > networking. > > > > At the very least, for digital anonymity, trusted entry nodes to a > > network, some number (math math) of trusted peer nodes (if all your > > entry node's peers are untrusted and say kill your link > > simultaneously, or in symmetric semi-rapid succession, they will > > likely be able to correlate your communication) and chaff fill links. > > > > 'Till then... pigs ain't flyin'. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018, 3:55 PM jim bell wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611757/this-new-ethereum-based-assassination-market-platform-could-cause-napster-size-legal/ > > > > > > > > > > >
[PEACE] New Syrian era begins - Israel bends the knee - massive news, celebration
>From war, peace, so it's time to change the subject tag from [WAR] to [PEACE]. Tears. Looks like our slavic brothers have a harder time bending the knee than modern day Israelites - and thankfully so for individual human rights which seem fundamentally at odds with a one world government. The tide is changing, and it's good news - multi-polar world courtesy Putin and Russia, and now the USA, is in my opinion a much better balance of power - we the "lowly" people have it hard enough even with nations as they are - it would be worse with a one world government which thankfully seems to be off the table now. Great news! Thank you to those who stood (and still stand) against the NWO. Celebration #1 of 13941228453 yet to come. Well done world, Israel Just Said Assad Being in Charge of Syria is Good for Israel https://dailystormer.name/okay-so-israel-just-said-assad-being-in-charge-of-syria-is-good-for-israel/
Re: latest NSA offering?
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:05:04 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 08/02/2018 01:46 PM, juan wrote: > > > > > > > > https://protonvpn.com/support/linux-vpn-setup/ > > You never know ;) > > So have y'all heard any more about the cat fight between PIA-cofounder > rasengan and ProtonVPN? The protonmail account on HN basically claimed > that PIA cooperates with the Chinese government.[0] And that this > accounts for the fact that the GFW wasn't blocking PIA as thoroughly as > other VPN services. > > And that presumably triggered rasengan's attack on ProtonVPN and > NordVPN.[0,1] He's criticized both for failing to disclose connections > to Tesonet. And he's characterized Tesonet as a data-mining service, > riffing on their competitive-intelligence pitch. > > Tesonet is apparently an enterprise VPN service, in Vilnius, which > focuses on B2B competitive intelligence. So maybe the allegations > regarding ProtonVPN and NordVPN are misleading. I mean, Tesonet is > serving data miners, but is arguably not data-mining its own customers. > And any VPN service could data-mine its customers ;) > > But it is quite the cat fight :) > > And really, it'd be amusing if PIA actually were China-centric. That'd > arguably make them _more_ secure for those concerned about the NSA. Oh interesting. Thanks for the info. I wonder about falkvinge and PIA. My thoughts on the subject aren't too clear, but it's something along the lines of : falkvinge and and a vpn associated with him seem to be high profile/a high value target so they must have been attacked? Compromised? > > 0) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17254113 > 1) > https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/anyone-using-protonmail.394862/page-2 > (near the end) > > > >
Re: latest NSA offering?
Seems that until companies allow independant all access unannounced continual auditing of their hardware, software, business operations, comms and records... cats will continue clawing. Any business that opens itself to such audits and passes them continually... can command its own price and profit greatly, hopefully in cryptocurrency. It also makes them more immune to attack from the very govt's they claim to be 'not logging or cooperating' with. #OpenFabs , #OpenHW , #OpenSW , #OpenBIZ Doesn't matter who it's owned or made or run or shilled by, If you can't see it... you can't trust it. And these biz' have the balls to claim trustworthiness? Call me when a handful of cpunks chosen at random crawl up their backorifice and come out clean.
