361–370 of 519 posts
They're paying over 12,000 people in zencash, to host 'securenodes' with domain names and ssl certificates for domain fronting, rather than using domain names without permission.
Couldn't Signal use popular domains to host IP addresses as a rudimentary DNS server of sorts? For example, host a text file containing Signal server IPs on Google App engine (using the app.google.com address), Azure Blob Storage (using blob.azure.com endpoint), GitHub (raw.githubusercontent.com), S3 (s3.amazonaws.com), etc. There are hundreds of possibilities on some really popular hosting services. Then, when the a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FANG Stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, apparently.
Three companies I don't use, and one that has lost nearly all of my search traffic due to terrible results for really simple queries. It will be interesting to see in what form they persist over the next few decades!
> nearly
So you do use it for search.
And two of these companies are probably hosting some of the websites you visit.
Haven't these guys solved this problem: https://zencash.com/ They're paying over 12,000 people in zencash, to host 'securenodes' with domain names and ssl certificates for domain fronting, rather than using domain names without permission. https://securenodes.na.zensystem.io/nodes/all
"Unfortunately, a TLS handshake fully exposes the target hostname in plaintext, since the hostname is included in the SNI header in the clear. This remains the case even in TLS 1.3, and it gives a censor all they need." Does this mean that endpoints that require SNI are potentially contributing to censorship? Facts: SNI is optional. Not all websites require it. For example, https://signal.org does not require SNI; cl…
The process listening to IPs that resolve as signal.org must not have alternative hosts on it, since the web server can’t choose a certificate based on anything but IP. Now the censor can just block your IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference when people have never had access to things and when you take away access. A difference would be like America and North Korea and taking away the internet. The vast majority of Americans use the internet and it is an integral part to their lives. You take it away and they would riot in a heartbeat. On the other hand if you have a regime where the majority of people never had access to the intern…
> You take it away and they would riot in a heartbeat. I'm not certain that this is true. No American Dictator would just outright ban the internet, no they'd say they were protecting children and blocking terrorists, and require internet providers to block that content. Anyone arguing that this is censorship would be branded as a supporter of child pornography and terrorists. A few more steps along that line and wha…
Haven't these guys solved this problem: https://zencash.com/ They're paying over 12,000 people in zencash, to host 'securenodes' with domain names and ssl certificates for domain fronting, rather than using domain names without permission. https://securenodes.na.zensystem.io/nodes/all
It would be trivial for censors to just block every single one of them.
Haven't these guys solved this problem: https://zencash.com/ They're paying over 12,000 people in zencash, to host 'securenodes' with domain names and ssl certificates for domain fronting, rather than using domain names without permission. https://securenodes.na.zensystem.io/nodes/all
That second link you provided lists every single one of the IP addresses and hostnames associated with the service. It would be trivial for censors to just block every single one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, free countries (or those who consider themselves as such) should make it fully illegal for private companies to aid in any kind of censorship in behalf of oppressive countries. But what we see in reality is the opposite, all companies trying to make it as cheap and as simple as possible to censor anything every government dislikes; meaning the liberal fantasy of allowing every private company to do as it ple…
As you note, private companies are typically free to do as they please in free countries...that's kinda the point. You have no right to use AWS, so this is not censorship in the legal sense. And free governments also tend to have strong laws respecting the sovereignty of other nations, whether or not their laws are similar. Your frustration is noble, but it's also internally inconsistent.