What is Digg?47 Comments
- flash200, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Software that allows anonymous use of the internet is the single most important factor for guarding against government and corporate censhorship, and for allowing the internet to remain a medium for free speech and collaboration.
The future of China, and possibly the US, hinges on this. - pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14WiFi does not reach the caves where he is hiding.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Everyone has rights to basic freedoms. Even criminals like George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden. The freedom of privacy is one of these rights.
- DrGonzo1184, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Why not link directly to the program's website?
Anyway, here it is:
http://www.scatterchat.com/ - bayonetblaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Yeah, you're right. Might as well give up.
- scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You might want to look into blocking PGP and OTR and almost every other type of encryption out there.
They are just tools "bad" people already have access to similar tools, the question is do you think everyday people should also have access to these tools? - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@valkyries: They cannot tell which packets are 'random' or which are not. And if they block them that is basically blocking freedom of speech.
They certainly can not send police to your house because you were encrypting your messages. - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9all the more reason to encrypt everything.
The more encrypted stuff the more the government will put its "super-computers" into decrypting directions to the pub - riddermark, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13One idea comes to mind: we could build ourselves a nice little police state, where all information is vetted by Homeland Security. Yay!
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9How can you be so willing to give up your freedom (and everyone elses). Don't tell me these disgusting scare tactics actually work on you. That is such a shame that people actually buy into them. You're giving up freedoms left right and centre and happy to do it because you believe the news and it keeps you scared. Don't buy into it. Remember your constitution. America has become a great nation for a reason but I fear that this slope you're on now will be devastating. I guess time will tell.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well, while the idea is interesting, i have noticed that some irc servers (while perhaps allowing ssl encryption tunnels to their servers) have blocked so-called "tor exit servers" or known distributed networks used with the intention of blocking obfuscated origins of a network transmission; however, they do this with the purpose of keeping those damnable spam bots and what-not off their servers.
Couldn't a totalitarian government, such as China do something similar through their national firewall? But then again, for some reason I'm typing up digg commentaries at 5AM on my 21st birthday. I'm very drunk. - crexor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9wasnt there already pgp ssl for aim via a gaim plugin. dugg for ease of use and seems like its targeted towards win32 at the moment so maybe it will have deep market penetration.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@zadadka
You are a stooge. It is governments you should be worried about, not ***** al Qaeda.
People like you are the enemy to common sense. - Hurricane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I just checked this out yesterday.
One completely useless aspect of it is that it must be installed on a system before you can use it.
What is the point, evidence of its use would be grounds for imprisonment and torture in some countries. - alephsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5People kill people... not encryptions regimes
- Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4alephsmith: they _are_ getting it while they can, and this client is helping people keep it. the only people that are moaning now are the ones who cannot get their hands on your chats or internet records (and the sheep that follow them.)
- diskbox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5haha, it was your government that created them, in my opinion the government is the biggest threat, as they have so many idiots who blindly support and follow them.they have the power, and they use it, and the sheep follow
- valkyries, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@flash200
you know all this "government and corporate censhorship" all they have to do is block any encrypted data :-P and by block i mean when they start seeing random data from your computer they know they need to send some cops to your house to teach you a lesson. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sorry you disagree. I feel it's a basic right.
- Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4you're entirely right, there needs to be a portable version, get to coding!
...
unless you're just bitching and moaning, in which case you're not doing much to help the development of a portable version. Also, there are portable versions of TrueCrypt that can be used to encrypt a container file to which this software (and its key directory) can be installed to. That'd get rid of evidence, wouldn't it? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Secure messenger to guard against totalitarian governments"
Like the Bush administration/NSA etc.? :> - flash200, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@valkyries
Blocking or prosecuting encrypted traffic would prevent commercial use of the internet (secure financial transactions). Corporations would do their best to prevent that from happening. Even in China, the WTO can apply a lot of pressure.
The government could use whitelisting, and block all traffic that's not going to or from a known, approved address. That would reduce the internet to a medium for commercial business and propaganda. But any government doing so would pay a heavy price technologically, as they'd be shutting their country out from the technological and educational advancements of the rest of the online world. That huge downside may discourage them from doing so.
By contrast, a government can easily block individuals or websites, without having to pay much of a political or technological price. The lack of a huge downside makes it likely that governments will favor this route over the other two. I think that's how the main assaults on the freedom of the internet will happen, and why tools for anonymous internet use are so important. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think you are talking about OTR (off the record). It's in gaim (and Adium for OS X), and works over any protocol.
Psi is able to do PGP over Jabber as well. - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2rompom7: I think he was referring to the earlier reference by flash200 to China. As soon as authorities there see some weird ***** coming out of your computer, they may know what's up and give you a stern talking to (or a jail sentance.)
Nevertheless, this client is filling the increasingly more important need for privacy on the internet, and I salute Hacktivismo in their work. :) - HHP2K, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is great, I started using it and I think I'll be using it for a long time. =)
- themikester60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm going to go with ridiculously easy. Download a packet sniffer sometime like Wire Shark (I believe this is what its called now, used to be called Ethereal, look it up) and turn it on while you're using an instant messenger. The results may surprise some out there that know very little about how the underlying magics of the Internet work.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They listed "Search and seizure" as a banned activity, and I don't think they ever expected it a possibility that the government could assign spies to hide in a person's walls and listen to their conversations. The supreme court has extended the concept of "unlawful search" out just short of a right to privacy.
- scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ SpeckledJim "There are commercial encrypting IM proxies around, but I'm not aware of any open source ones. Pity."
let me introduce you to "Off The Record Messaging" (with proxy available, along with gaim/adium plugins on linux/win/osx and yes opensource)
http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
encryption + deniability + perfect forward secrecy + authentication.... enjoy - coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just uploaded it to the Archlinux User Repository ( http://aur.archlinux.org ) If you're an archer and would like to see this program in the official repo, please register an AUR account and vote for the following packages:
Scatterchat
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=6110&O=0&L=0&C=0&K=scatterchat&SB=&SO=&PP=25&do_MyPackages=0&do_Orphans=0&SeB=nd
Scatterchat-Module (required by Scatterchat)
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=6109&O=0&L=0&C=0&K=scatterchat&SB=&SO=&PP=25&do_MyPackages=0&do_Orphans=0&SeB=nd - SpeckledJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why a whole new client and not a proxy? I'm pretty sure you'd have more success with a tool like this, particularly on Windows, if users were able to continue using their existing clients. There are commercial encrypting IM proxies around, but I'm not aware of any open source ones. Pity.
- rishdeep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well how safe is IM clients like MSN Messenger/Yahoo!/ICQ etc.? How easy would it be for a "totalitarian government" to see what you're typing or sending? How easy would it be for just other random hackers that are about?
- Darkness123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"ScatterChat uses 2048-bit ElGamal and 1024-bit DSA for encryption setup and authentication. For each new conversation, ScatterChat generates a new 256-bit AES message key, a 256-bit SHA-1 HMAC key, a 256-bit nonce, and a 256-bit AES file transfer key. It is immune to replay attacks, supports Perfect Forward Secrecy, and features limited message deniability properties."
I thought I was paranoid. lol
But this won't mean much when Quantam Computers come out, but I guess they will update it then. - myleslong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thanks for doing this. SC needs to be as prolific as possible.
- flash200, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1posted in wrong place, digg it down
- masticate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Privacy is an implied natural right.
The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 12, states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. - ValFreEntrtnmnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"They certainly can not send police to your house because you were encrypting your messages."
Coming soon to the UK! http://www.spy.org.uk/ripa3/
"This blog has been spawned from Spy Blog in order to provide a public space in which to comment on and discuss the long delayed Code of Practice and the latest UK Government proposals regarding Part III of the Regulation of Invesitgatory Powers Act 2000
This is the controversial portion of the Act which has lain dormant for 6 years, which deals with Government and Police access to Encrypted Data and Encryption Keys.. " - evilbeatfarmer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This is from cDc? ahahah it's probably backdoored just like BO!
(yes, you can hide backdoors in opensource if you're crafty enough...) - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wasn't there some special on TV a few years back about memos recovered from al qaeda that revieled that they stopped using electronic forms of communication as they were too easy for the US government to monitor, and instead reverted back to a much more secure physical messanger system?
For some reason, I really doubt that readily available encryption is going to change things. After all, there's already the AES-256 encrypted Hamachi system which includes a built-in IM system and only has a transitory link to any kind of master server.
alephsmith: Yea, they are human creations. They are human creations that people have fought and died over. How important you hold those human creations is directly related to how important you think our fallen soldiers are. They gave their lives so you can say that they wasted their lives over something unimportant.
We're fighting to keep our rights, not crying over them as if there's no hope left. - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Doesn't this all operate on the theory that the government doesn't have some super computer that is significantly more powerful then what is publicly known?
- dsn0wman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think these encryption standards are going to be available in many countrys. At least not leagally.
- shutdown, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Yer and they use that funny talk too - that other language, which I donst get... Let's ban that too. I knows my enemy, I am an enemy knower... Hehehe.
You idiot. - PrettyBoyFloyd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1No, there is no god-given right to privacy. You only have an obligation to yourself to maintain your own privacy, and this is a valuable tool for that purpose. I've been using the TorPark browser on my USB drive ever since I was notified that all our web browsing traffic at my office would be monitored by the IT Department (i.e., me and my co-workers). I have the technical knowledge to use a work-around, and I'm going to do so. I don't do much web surfing at work, simply because I'm too busy, and the browsing I do is usually legit, but if I need to check my personal email through a web client, I'll just run TorPark. Yes, one of the reasons we're doing this is to block people from using HotMail, YahooMail and Gmail on our network since virus and worm infected messages can come through that way bypassing our own virus protection on our email servers.
- alephsmith, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I still don't get why people believe we have a god-given (figure-of-speech only) right to privacy.
Simple fact is that privacy- like ethics and religion and all that other junk are purely human creations. Get it while you can but don't moan when it disappears. - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1forgot to hit the reply button, nvm.
- jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1No, privacy was never listed as a Natural right. Sry to tell you that but there are more important rights than you privacy rights.
Well that being said lets see how far modded down this comment gets. - zadadka, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2Oooh...good...another method by which Al Qeada and others can "make arrangments".
"guarding against government and corporate censhorship, "?
Idiot......the first task of defence is recognising who the enemy is. - dcmax, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4Anyone have any bright ideas on how we can keep this URL from Bin Laden?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is