On 6 Oct 2005, at 21:36, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----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.
Reality disagrees with you. The Chinese government has arrested, brutalised, even murdered many more than three people, it has not scared the many Chinese people that are using systems that are *far* less secure than Freenet or I2P. > 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. Yeah, because the Chinese really need us to tell them how to build walkie-talkies. For what its worth, I have had numerous discussions with various groups "on the ground" in China, and most are all frustrated by western idealists "let them eat cake" attitude towards anti- censorship technology. > 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. We can all string together truisms, I don't see the relevance to this discussion. Ian.
