-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Many people in the anonymity community have set themselves the goal > of "perfect anonymity". In doing so, they aren't focussed on what > users want or need, because most users I have met want "better", and > will happily accept that in lieu of "perfect".
Certainly, I as well. But you're missing the economics of scale. When the adversary is actually threatened by such a system, they will use what they have available, including brutality to terrorize the remaining users away. Arrest or brutalize three users and you scare away the remaining. Or is the hope that the uncommitted will instantly rise up, spreading a revolutionary wave of change? Does everyone know that they are standing up to be a martyr? If the adversary is actually threatened, they may also put in the effort to automate their attacks in ways that wouldn't be worth it for fewer users. As such, as the network grows it becomes *less* secure. If intent is to help those who are up for the risk, their numbers are few enough that low tech solutions are a better fit - get them plans to a $0.10 radio transmitter, or work with groups on the ground to see what they actually need. Perfection does not exist, but square pegs don't fit in round holes. Tech that makes sense in the west does not inherently make sense elsewhere. =jr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRZJ0WYfZ3rPnHH0RAh+fAJsGFNHKZX171a190U8cMNkl6oSstACdFRfo GVW9JXGjDtcCJ1LLMxBZ7vM= =Qyrr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
