Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"First, the data stream is filtered through what is known as MVR (Massive Volume Reduction), which immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads. This reduces the volume by about 30%."

So all ye folks can start disguising your packets as BitTorrent porn downloads now :)

It's also how they tried to mislead the public by saying NSA only collects "4 percent" of the world's data" or something - but "forgot" to mention that data could be emails, chats and urls (essentially the content itself), while the majority of the data is stuff like Youtube/Netflix content and torrents.

Probably 4% of max cable capacity. But the cables have a lot of unused capacity.

If you're at all important/a threat, they're paying particular attention to your porn habits so as to bolster their dossier on you. This is for later public release/blackmail purposes.

A Truecrypt container shared by Bittorrent would be a bad idea.

Why specifically? I always considered this a relatively safe way to transmit encrypted data. Assuming you have secure key exchange worked out, which is always the harder part anyway.

I'm not sure if this is what the OP meant, but this[1] is what I think of when I hear anyone mention "Truecrypt".

1. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nsa-paranoia-has-fanned-the...

Ah, I guess I should have qualified my statement with "assuming the underlying crypto of truecrypt is secure, does sharing the ciphertext via bittorrent introduce any further side channel attacks outside of compromising the key exchange?"

So long-password protected multipart rar files then!

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact