[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eternity Uncensorable?
Adam Back <[email protected]> writes:
> Mark Grant <[email protected]> writes:
> > so all that a government need do to censor a particular site is to
> > scan for those messages and issue cancels. Sure, your site and those
> > upstream may not accept such messages, but potentially they can
> > still wipe out a large fraction of the system or at least force
> > users to change their eternity URLs on a regular basis.
> Two comments on this:
> - I understand cancels are ignored a lot of places, due to problems with
> censorous people, and pranksters issuing tons of forged cancels.
> These censorous people are actually doing us a big favour because it
> is their actions which has led to the widespread policy of ignoring
Yep. (I hope my making available an easy-to-use program for foring cancels
helped a little too, he he he.)
> However this is going on other peoples information. I don't have
> any figures for how widespread the practice of configuring news to
> ignore cancels is.
Major ISPs (America Online, Netcom, Earthlink..) all ignore cancels.
More precise numbers would be interesting.
> However I'm not sure having passphrases is that good of an idea,
> because it'll be furtively passed around amongst the community of the
> person who submitted the documents, but that can always leak out.
I can't think of a clever way to use public keys (and don't think this
is a good idea anyway)
> Longer term perhaps some of Ross Anderson's more advanced ideas can be
> added, as discussed by Ryan Lackey in the thread entitled "distributed
> data store, a la eternity".
Adam, you're doing a great job. Can I buy you a dinner when I'm in London?
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps