On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:59:10PM -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:36:15 -0700 > Robert Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 05:02:16PM +0100, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote: > > > > ..........snip.......... > > > > > >I would like to add directions describing how best to post > > > >anonymously > > > >for end users. I would like US govt regulators to be able to > > > >comment > > > >about the problems and corruption they encounter at their jobs > > > >without > > > >fear of retaliation, but I am not sure how best to set-up a site > > > >which > > > >could provide this service. The hope would be to coordinate a > > > >bright > > > >light on the current regulatory problems to help speed up the > > > >process > > > >of regulatory reform through safe public discourse. > > > > > > > >Have any other site already successfully achieved this result? > > > > > > > >Help and feedback are appreciated. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > > > >Engsafety > > > > > > I think Tor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)) > > > and freenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet) are some > > > interesting starting points. > > > > Chaining remailers would work for this. More secure than Tor. > > Why is it more secure? I think I may have spoken too soon and stuck my foot in my mouth. The site that claimed Tor wasn't as secure as people thought said that the message traveling from the sender to the first Tor server was in clear. The same when the message traveling from the last Tor server to it's final destination. I think the same problem exists with chained remailers. Anyone want to correct me? -- Bob Holtzman If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer. Key ID: 8D549279
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature