[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 23 March 2014 15:14, Martijn Grooten <martijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A more serious issue, if I understand the idea well enough, is that > your peers have some insight in the content you're accessing. Which > means it would be easy for a big adversary to run several peers and > use that to keep track of who is accessing blocked content. That's gone over my head, I'm afraid. Like you, I'm uncertain as to how well I understand what they're proposing, but it looks like you're at least a few steps ahead of me in overall comprehension. The insight comes from holding not just links to data but the actual data itself, right? Meaning the data can be quickly searched, indexed, analyzed etc on every peer, quickly as in without that peer having to pull it in over the Net. That seems to me be both an opportunity and a risk, and rather more of an opportunity at that (in most cases). So I guess I can see how an adversary could gain this insight, but I'm not sure a) it matters or b) it's what the proposal is meant to prevent. > That is *far worse* than simply blocking the content. Chilling effect > and all that. I'm not sure I see how. Which is not to say that it ain't so, just that I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes. -- Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz @UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq