Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be anonymous

kg.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 260 posts

Re: Be anonymous

#231

Post by l33t2328 »

Loughla wrote: post #228
panta wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some important differences. Alcohol distilleries didn't label/market their products as beneficial ailments intended to cure diseases. Pharmaceutical companies should be bound, at least morally, by the same hippocratic oath that govern the medical profession. Clearly they are not.

>Alcohol distilleries didn't label/market their products as beneficial ailments intended to cure diseases. But they did? They just did it 100+ years ago. Does that matter?

Of course it doesn’t. We’re talking about who is doing what today.

Re: Be anonymous

#232

Post by toss1 »

notsoanonynous wrote: post #181
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iirc phones will broadcast previously connected access point max addresses. I doubt gp truly understands what it takes to be anonymous (imo it’s probably impossible).

So what if they find that you used a phone? They still had to somehow link your online identity to your phone. And how would they do that? The phone is simply a computer that you use, through VPNs, to send and reveive mail and post messages to groups etc. They’d have to approach ProtonMail, then your VPNs in order, and then get security footage from the place where you were accessing the VPN at that time. And then cr…

>>Buying phones on craigslist is one example.

It seems that this would work for a while, but if we're trying to bootstrap well into the future, a shiny new phone of the hour Samsung S22 showing up new on the network only 15 years out in 2037 would stick out like a beacon, and that's assuming it would even connect to the then-current comms protocols.

This is nontrivial

Re: Be anonymous

#233

Post by michaelt »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #213
wyclif wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, as mentioned, the problem is that they detect the fraud and yank the site.

Lel, how? John Doe from WI, paid his dues. Once a year "John Doe" receives the e-mail with WHOIS info and a question if that info is still valid: > We are required by ICANN to send you the whois information for these domains once a year. If the information is correct, no action is needed. Otherwise please visit our website and update your whois information That's all. Just don't use GoDaddy or some other shit registr…

> Lel, how?

Your adversary disputes the ownership of example.com claiming they're the real John Doe, but the victim of a crazy stalker-hacker who hacked their e-mail and forced them to change address and phone number.

The registrar looks at the details they have on record. The adversary can't prove any of the details - but neither can you.

Re: Be anonymous

#234

Post by ziml77 »

Riverheart wrote: post #125
notsoanonynous wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tor is amateur hour. The Feds can easily deanomymize things where a server is up 24/7 servicing requests. The author of this article is also very wrong: Anonymity is not on a spectrum. It’s all or nothing. Like a Mario game where any mistaken encounter makes you start over (and that’s if you don’t get in trouble for what you did). First step is to understand that any system could be bugged. Every IRL confidant could…

Not nearly on the level as what is being suggested but my company has had several anonymous surveys and I started thinking about writing style when taking them. If you're prone to certain phrases, words, use of contractions or lack thereof, especially when the pool of people is small and you're providing critical (but needed) criticisms, you could potentially be identified by your immediate supervisor. Introducing ty…

We can give anonymous feedback about others where I work. We can submit it at any time about anything, positive or negative. I have never touched it despite knowing that HR doesn't get my name. It's not hard to figure out who's submitted a piece of feedback from their writing style and the specific situation you're writing about. Like if I were to give feedback related to working on a project with one other person, any sort of specifics about the project would make it very obvious that it was me writing the feedback.

Re: Be anonymous

#235

Post by anderspitman »

blakesterz wrote: post #2

"Ultimately, anonymity comes down to one thing: Control. You should educate yourself on data privacy and make sure that you know what data you're sharing and what is possibly out there." That's some REALLY good Solid advice.

I see what you did there

https://solidproject.org/

Re: Be anonymous

#236

Post by toss1 »

xurukefi wrote: post #221
cellis wrote: post #38

As careful as some of the things he suggests are...if you're truly wanted by a state-level actor or sufficiently motivated attacker, you won't be able to hide by simply using VPN and Tor. Especially if you're running something with many transactions like AlphaBay. You would need to obfuscate quite a bit more: - if you're using VPN traffic but most people "around" you aren't, you're a suspicious node; your ISP could e…

Are there reported incidents where somebody was caught with such sophisticated techniques? It seems like every time I read about how the FBI caught some big darknet criminal it was pretty much always some trivial mistake on the criminal's side.

But that is just it - you can use all the sophisticated techniques but there are 10000 ways to make a fatal error, and that number increases with every action. So even if you are 99.99% rock solid in your technique, it is a certainty that you will get caught with that one 'dumb' mistake. It only looks dumb in hindsight, but it was inevitable.

Getting to 99.99999% reliability is very difficult for one person, it usually takes a highly diligent team with very well-sorted processes.

Re: Be anonymous

#237

Post by toss1 »

bee_rider wrote: post #55
propesh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kidding aside, this is exactly how it will go down. Politician in a scrape of financial corruption or etc.? Deepfake s*x video or other viral blatant misinformation & obfuscation; what's the risk? Upside, no one knows what to believe. Exactly what various "countries" are doing. It will be extreme; to the point where, don't believe half of what you actually see.

It should be noted that this is a pretty bad end state. Reporting is already an extremely weak force for preventing corruption on the part of the powerful. Journalists entering a state of total uselessness is only going to make the problem bigger. In a realm of total bullshit the winners are the one who are best at lying. "I don't know what to believe and everyone involved is probably corrupt" is usually just an excu…

>> "I don't know what to believe and everyone involved is probably corrupt" is usually just an excuse to disengage and follow base instincts.

It is ALSO the primary goal of dezinformatsia and "flood the zone with bullshit" (promoted by e.g., Steve Bannon) techniques. While some will believe even the most stupid conspiracy theories put out there, many more will just conclude that finding the real truth is impossible/impractical and just disengage. This is a deadly threat to democracy and a key tool to anyone who wants to destroy a society or own it as an autocrat.

Re: Be anonymous

#238

Post by toss1 »

hammock wrote: post #41
bugBunny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess none of these suggestions really work without the last one "Move to Brazil and live in the rainforest" :)

Even that didn't work for John McAfee

McAfee would likely still be around if he hadn't made such a blatant point of publicly thumbing his nose at the US Tax authorities. While it's possible that he was already under investigation and just decided to make a spectacle of it, one thing you do NOT want to do is piss off the bureaucrats. They'll then have literally nothing better to do than track you down, and the largest network in the world to do it, and that network has insane inertia - once they're hunting for you, it just keeps going, they don't get bored.

Re: Be anonymous

#239

Post by ziml77 »

atmosx wrote: post #176
sampo wrote: post #76

Maybe Eric S. Raymond's advice from 21 years ago is no longer true in today's internet: > Concealing your identity behind a handle is a juvenile and silly behavior characteristic of crackers, warez d00dz, and other lower life forms. Hackers don't do this; they're proud of what they do and want it associated with their real names. So if you have a handle, drop it. In the hacker culture it will only mark you as a loser…

The ESR idea of "a hacker" has nothing to do with someone running illegal markets on darknet. ESR was thinking about ppl like Daniel: https://twitter.com/bagder

We're on Hacker News. I think we understand what he means by the term. Even if you're not doing anything remotely illegal or harmful it's still not a good idea to be overly open about who you are on the internet.

Re: Be anonymous

#240

Post by CRConrad »

notsoanonynous wrote: post #169
majormajor wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. Pay and get paid in cryptocurrency. Have smart contracts send you the money (think Richard Heart’s Hex origin address, but actually anonymous). My first question about this plan is "what are you getting paid for and how do you advertise your services"? You need to never meet the people paying you in person, and ideally you are selling some purely digital good. So, something like underground illegal programming o…

I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. No, you don’t do work for money. You start an open source project and get many people to run your software. You meanwhile generate as many early rewards as you can (you can even do it under multiple accounts) and when the ecosystem is up and running, you’ll be the mysterious founder, generating millions (or billions) in passive income. Sounds familiar? It should… Simply neve…

So lemme spell it out: This is what you're claiming Satoshi did / is doing.
Post reply on HN