
You broke the Internet. We're making ourselves a GNU one [video] - Tsiolkovsky
https://gnunet.org/internetistschuld
======
slacka
For the tech savvy, there are plenty of solutions to "fix the internet". From
Tor to I2P, I use many of these tools regularly. Many more can be found here.
[https://gist.github.com/postmodern/5018337](https://gist.github.com/postmodern/5018337)

We don't need more tools, we need tools that non-geeks can use. For example,
ten years ago, I worked at a company with a policy to use PGP with Symantec
PGP software installed on PCs. Even the engineers sill failed to use it
regularly. On several occasions I had to use logmein because the other
company's IT department was incapable of setting up PGP for their own users.
Ten years later and the Ask Slashdot is how get someone to send them their
public key. [http://ask.slashdot.org/story/13/08/10/0028235/ask-
slashdot-...](http://ask.slashdot.org/story/13/08/10/0028235/ask-slashdot-..).

I only have 2 contacts that I can use PGP to communicate with. Usability is
the issue. Unfortunately most GNU Projects have never excelled in this area.
It's too bad Mozilla dropped support for Thunderbird. Tight integration with
GnuPG + a Mozilla cloud Public key directory could have made mainstream PGP a
reality.

~~~
gasull
> _I only have 2 contacts that I can use PGP to communicate with. Usability is
> the issue._

This is why Bitmessage is so promising. Everything is encrypted and anonymous
by default. The PGP/GPG setup is a huge barrier. With Bitmessage you just need
to install it and it just works.

~~~
yapcguy
Bitmessage is a bad idea, read the white paper. Every message is retained
forever by every BM client.

~~~
InXorWeTrust
> Every message is retained forever by every BM client.

That is not true.

From the white paper [0] under section 6:

> We propose that nodes store all objects for two days and then delete them.

It's also on the FAQ[1]:

> Yes. However, if you go offline then they must come back online within 2
> days of the message being sent. Nodes delete data, and do not accept data,
> older than 2 days.

The sender will not delete the message until it's received an acknowledge from
the receiver. It instead will recompute the proof of work and resend in an
exponential growing interval. This is also in section 6 of [0].

> If a node is offline for more than two days, the sending node will notice
> that it never received an acknowledgement and rebroadcasts the message after
> an additional two days. It will continue to rebroadcast the message, with
> exponential backoff, forever.

[0]
[https://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf](https://bitmessage.org/bitmessage.pdf)

[1]
[https://bitmessage.org/wiki/FAQ#Can_I_send_a_message_to_some...](https://bitmessage.org/wiki/FAQ#Can_I_send_a_message_to_someone_that_is_offline)

~~~
yapcguy
The proposal in section 6 is somewhat redundant given section 5:

> ...all users receive all messages...

It would be trivial to modify the BM client to archive/save all messages it
receives.

------
txutxu
Didn't know this project (gnunet).

I see it provides file sharing and vpn.

VPN will fix some ISP level tracking issues.

Private file sharing will protect some cloud surveillance and limiting laws.

This is great, to minimise surveillance. It's nice to be able to share files
properly, but it's not my "typical" internet usage (neither it's on my family
members). It's nice to be able to go out through a sane VPN.

Still I miss important things to fix my "internet":

* DNS and search. * Email service. * Browser.

These are my main problems today. I can workaround my ISP when I want, and I
can share files in the way I like... but I see the problem in my previous 3
points.

Also I wish so many interesting initiatives could be separated of the "pirate"
"trademark".

It's not a problem for me, but I think it's not a proper "image" for general
purpose projects, just because of how people brain works in "general" (in
special people not literate about what this really is).

Nice talks, and thanks for the link.

~~~
microcolonel
If you're already willing to sacrifice privacy for convenience, they already
have you.

If you're using OSX or that wacky hybrid kernel system from Redmond, WA,
You're basically screwed anyway because your endpoints are compromised from
day one.

Here's the thing, if you jump at every convenience then blame people working
on the vast and complex software required to support privacy, absolutely
nobody will come to your defense.

I set my bar very low, if I can obscure the source location of my IRC and
email traffic, then I'm all good; All other channels are secondary, and are
not worth bursting my basic network node anonymity over if there's no other
option.

~~~
ruir
As someone who cares about security and privacy, I'd like to know why I'd want
to obscure the location of IRC/email traffic.

On IRC I can see that you could come across adversaries on some sketchy irc
networks - but, in my case, as just a random developer idling away on freenode
(using a host cloak) should I really care that I'm trusting freenode?

And what about email? Is that because your ip will be visible on the mail
headers if sent from localhost?

And if you're using a VPN or Tor, aren't you just displacing the trust to
those providers?

Another thing I'd like to know is just how much more of a potential target you
become once you use the tor network. I speculate that tor has a lot of
blackhats fishing for potential targets.

------
spindritf
I like that the player gives out (right click) the location of the video and
even offers an option to download it. That may be more important than the
permissive license.

The server, however, seems to be a bit overloaded at the moment. Is there a
torrent somewhere? Maybe an HD torrent?

EDIT: Fist English talk starts at 4:10.

~~~
raphman
Right-click download is an implicitly inherent feature of the HTML5 <video>
element that is used, not an explicit choice by the creators. I love it, too.

------
aw3c2
I think this is it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lcauMH70cA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lcauMH70cA)

[http://internetistschuld.de/](http://internetistschuld.de/)

edit: Could have used a sock over the microphone.

~~~
teddyh
The Youtube video is only the first hour. The real video is two and a half
hours.

------
cromwellian
Defeating traffic analysis has too many downsides for most users, I think the
perfect is the enemy of the good here. Having at least working confidentiality
and integrity to the content of communications in messaging would be a step
up. The NSA will still be able to see who you're talking to, but the crypto-
libertarian utopia is not about to arrive any time soon, especially with
FreeNet like systems, but getting most people on a better system that reduces
the amount of snooping, is better than building an idealized system which the
great unwashed masses won't use.

------
SingleFounderCo
I have a little different take. So, let's assume that you can combine 5+
encryptions / encryption points and hide the contents of you communication on
someone else's network. IT IS STILL SOMEONE ELSE'S NETWORK. What happens when
the network owner becomes China (game already over), UK (now blocking porn,
next political speech, etc. >> game over), USSR, USSA, etc. and decides that
your packets look like something we don't transfer. Or what about the old
proposal to require a license to use the Internet? -- see
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1925188060.shtml](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1925188060.shtml)
and [http://business.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-
the...](http://business.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-
internet/) and a million other links.

Solutions built on top of some existing (OWNED) platform are inherently
fragile until there's a private (P2P-like HAM radio to smoke signal) transfer
pipe.

~~~
AsymetricCom
You should try to make a tiny effort to check the link before commenting.

~~~
SingleFounderCo
OK - here's another. [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/internet-attack-
defense...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/internet-attack-defense-
license-and-registration-please/6934)

"Yet the reality is, governments may have to reconsider such an requirement.
It may not fly today, but don't be surprised if it becomes reality in the near
future. Every device connected to the Internet will have a permament license
plate and without it, the network won't allow you to log in."

The point is that people have been calling for this for 10 years and it's
going to happen SO why would you expect that the "Internet police" would allow
you to move around in any manner (speed, intoxication level, destination, type
of transport, etc.) that you see fit?

------
louwrentius
Although I admire the smart people who build these tools, the issue at hand is
not technological. We all know that it takes two to tango and we also know
that the other person will not be able to use all these privacy tools. The NSA
has infinite resources and will get to you or your data. You can't protect
yourself from an evil government. You will loose. Using these privacy tools
only makes you a target (child pornografy, terrorist) and will give them an
excuse to further target you. With the resources NSA has at hand, how many
0-days will they have at their disposal for any software product? I believe we
can never resolve this issue in any other way than through politics.

------
anigbrowl
Is this going to be like the Hurd? Because ideology and functionality seem
pretty orthogonal to me.

[http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html](http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html)

------
mark_l_watson
I went through the steps of building the GNUnet stack yesterday - a nice idea,
but they have a long way to go.

BTW, I watched the video of the conference in Germany yesterday and blogged my
summary of what Richard said: [http://markwatson.com/blog/2013-08/fsf-more-
relevant-than-ev...](http://markwatson.com/blog/2013-08/fsf-more-relevant-
than-ever.html)

------
northwest
The other "darknet" options:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29)

The most complete one seems to be
[http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/](http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/)

~~~
Sami_Lehtinen
Retroshare is F2F (darknet) network. But Freenet and GNUnet provide generic
anonymous networking (with efficient caching!), without you setting up
contacts with your peers beforehand. Network where you can access only
preknown resources isn't that useful after all. At least for finding new
peers. Think about web browser, if you could only open pages which urls you
already know. Who needs Google for anything? With retroshare all resources are
gone if you delete those, with Freenet & GNUnet you simply can't delete
anything. Very different design. Plz read white and design papers.

Also see: [http://secushare.org/](http://secushare.org/)

~~~
northwest
> With retroshare all resources are gone if you delete those, with Freenet &
> GNUnet you simply can't delete anything.

Sure, that's true and the advantage of Freenet and GNUnet. The flip side of
the caching is of course that this comes at a cost: It takes a lot more
resources to have this kind of redundancy.

RetroShare btw _does_ let you download files anonymously from friends-of-
friends etc. if the "owner" agrees to it. (You only have to know your
immediate friends.)

~~~
Sami_Lehtinen
Yes, but redundancy also means that resources are never unavailable due
overload etc. As hacker news users know, sites with most interesting new
content are often down. With efficient caching, that simply won't happen. Btw.
BitTorrent could utilize caching also much more efficiently.

I know RS allows TurtleHopping, which is extremely inefficient method of
transferring data, compared to GNUnets solution. With GNUnet you can transfer
data directly with the source anonymously, while also at the very same time
creating new sources for that data.

------
nimbusvid
Here is a higher bandwidth link to the same video

[http://www.nimbusvid.com/mega/#!xAEGXQiD!ez8HoC-
LS4m2k2YYGZP...](http://www.nimbusvid.com/mega/#!xAEGXQiD!ez8HoC-
LS4m2k2YYGZPyIjZahYFX6dGG44Mr3yGU9pk)

------
natch
I wish they had one more, more universally appealing, bullet on the "Everybody
has secrets" slide:

* Personal and family information

------
drmr
Too bad the secushare slides are completely unreadable.

Or is it part of some obfuscation strategy?

------
AsymetricCom
So, do you still want to donate to ACLU instead of FSF?

~~~
mark_l_watson
I support both. A good investment.

