Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Pirate Party Launches Commercial Darknet

Posted by CowboyNeal on Tue Aug 15, 2006 01:42 AM
from the nothing-to-see-here dept.
CrystalFalcon writes "The Swedish Pirate Party has launched a commercial, high-capacity darknet, on an unprecedented scale and bandwidth. This service lets anybody send and receive files anonymously without being tracked or traced. 'There are many legitimate reasons to want to be completely anonymous on the Internet,' says Rickard Falkvinge, chairman of the Pirate Party. 'If the government can check everything each citizen does, nobody can keep the government in check.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Rock On Dude (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:45AM (#15908522)
    The nightmare of the *AA and my pipe dream. When's it coming to the states and where do I sign up?
  • by viniosity (592905) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:48AM (#15908538) Homepage Journal

    Basically, this gives users the advantage of a Swedish IP address from anywhere in the world.

    That's what I call massaging the numbers!

    (Unfortunately,) I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waiter.
  • Question? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cherita Chen (936355) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:48AM (#15908539) Homepage
    If it is commercial, couldn't the company' records be subpoenaed (in a worst case scenario) by state/local/etc authorities? If so, I would think that would spell even worse trouble for a user.
    • Re:Question? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kickedfortrolling (952486) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:50AM (#15908544)
      I think part of the point is that sweedish law gives much higher burdens of proof for requesting such info. TFA gives some interesting (but maybe unreliable given US law's recent incursions) info about the law they rely on
      • Read The FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

        by tmk (712144) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:30AM (#15908640)
        Short version: They keep only records who is customer, not about his traffic. https://www.relakks.com/faq/legal/ [relakks.com]

        Legal

        RELAKKS is a company incorporated in Sweden. The service is basically a Swedish broadband subscription offered over the Internet. This means that the legal framework mainly consists of the The Electronic Communications Act 2003 389. What will this mean if:

        Swedish authorities or,
        Other organization or individuals demands access to information protected by RELAKKS?


        RELAKKS Safe Surf enjoys the strongest legal protection possible under Swedish Law because of the service type (pre-paid flat-rate service). This means that RELAKKS do not have to keep an ordinary customer database (to be able handle transactions etc.). This is of importance if forced to hand over information.

        If Swedish authorities can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a case for demanding subscription information from RELAKKS (they have to be of the opinion that if convicted the user will be imprisoned - fined not enough). .

        RELAKKS then have to hand over the subscription information entered by you (but that's all). RELAKKS do not store any subscribtion information about you except what you entered yourself when signing up for the RELAKKS Safe Surf service.

        For Swedish authorities to force RELAKKS to hand over "traffic data" including your RELAKKS IP at a specific point in time, they will have to prove a case with the minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

        Regarding inquires from other parties than Swedish authorities RELAKKS will never turn over any kind of information.

        The combination Swedish high-tech encryption and the strongest legal protection give you true access to Internet, safer and speedier then ever before.

        For more information about Swedish Telecom Law: The Electronic Communications Act 2003:389
    • Re:Question? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Alpha830RulZ (939527) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:58AM (#15908557)
      Quite possibly, but the facts that its: 1) a different country, with a separate legal system that seems to deliver what the US constitution promises 2) A European Union country, which has demonstrated a much less media industry friendly policy and 3) a different judicial system, so that US laws don't apply, and US legal precedents won't have much weight suggest to me that it will offer quite a bit of protection. A terrorist might get caught up in the legal web, but the RIAA will have their costs raised by a couple of orders of magnitude, and Jesus, that's alright with me (cue guitars...)
    • Re:Question? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dcapel (913969) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:01AM (#15908566) Homepage
      Records? What Records?!
    • Re:Question? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mincognito (839071) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:01AM (#15908567)

      If it is commercial, couldn't the company' records be subpoenaed (in a worst case scenario) by state/local/etc authorities?

      Records? What records?
      • by dcapel (913969) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:08AM (#15908587) Homepage
        Re:Question? (Score:2)
          by dcapel (913969) on Tuesday August 15, @02:01AM (#15908566)
        (http://wot.narg.googlepages.com/)
        Records? What Records?!

        Re:Question?
          (Score:2)
          by mincognito (839071) Alter Relationship on Tuesday August 15, @02:01AM (#15908567)
        (http://thegreennotebook.blogspot.com/)

          If it is commercial, couldn't the company' records be subpoenaed (in a worst case scenario) by state/local/etc authorities?

          Records? What records?

        Ok, you are either copying me (your post id is one larger) or that is plain SCARY.
        • by mincognito (839071) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:29AM (#15908634)
          Re:Question? (Score:2) by dcapel (913969) on Tuesday August 15, @02:01AM (#15908566) (http://wot.narg.googlepages.com/) Records? What Records?! Re:Question? (Score:2) by mincognito (839071) Alter Relationship on Tuesday August 15, @02:01AM (#15908567) (http://thegreennotebook.blogspot.com/) If it is commercial, couldn't the company' records be subpoenaed (in a worst case scenario) by state/local/etc authorities? Records? What records? Ok, you are either copying me (your post id is one larger) or that is plain SCARY.
          • by mincognito (839071) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:34AM (#15908660)
            um, that was supposed to be funny but i forgot to copy the formatting. but seriously, that was an amazing coincidence. 1 in a 1,000,000. other people win the lottery, i simultaneously post the same message to slashdot as dcapel.
        • by monoqlith (610041) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:33AM (#15908655)
          In the late 17th Century, Newton and Liebniz came up with Calculus almost simultaneously. [wikipedia.org]

          Now, in the 21st century, we have 'dcapel' and 'mincognito' with identical, +1 Insightful Slashdot posts simultaneously.

          I call that progress.

          It's now time for you two to sue the pants off of each other for copyright infringement.

          Ready, set, call your lawyers...now!
        • Re:Question? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by evilviper (135110) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:46AM (#15908693) Journal
          Ok, you are either copying me (your post id is one larger) or that is plain SCARY.

          In other words...

              DUPE! DUPE! DUPE!

          Okay, everyone can mod him down (-1 Redundant) now, for being a fraction of a second slower than you to submit.

          You should be happy that this is nothing major. I heard an American sniper tell a story of when he was assigned to kill a Vietnamese sniper. The American's bullet went straight down the scope of the Vietnamese sniper's riffle, and killed him. If the American had pulled the trigger just a bit slower, it would have been the other guy telling the exact same story.
    • Re:Question? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:32AM (#15908648) Journal
      Quick translation from their Security FAQ:

      What do this law [of Swedish electronic communication; 2003:389] say when it comes what Swedish government agencies or others request access to the information protected by RELAKKS?

      When it comes to Swedish law enforcement agencies, RELAKKS has the same rights and obligations as a regular ISP with two important differences.

      1. RELAKKS uses advance payments, which implies RELAKKS does not need to follow a traditional subscriber register. This is of great importance due to what kinds of customer information RELAKKS can disclose.

      If Swedish agencies can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have legal support in requesting the user information from RELAKKS (the penalty has to in this case be greater than fines), RELAKKS need to disclose the subscriber details you as a user has submitted.

      2. RELAKKS does not save customer details beyond those you have given yourself when signing up for the service (you can also change these details as long as you're a paying customer). If you don't proceed using the service, RELAKKS will delete your user account.

      The details Swedish agencies can request beyond user account details (see above) are so called traffic information. These are protected by a much stronger legal protection. To disclose these, the crime needs to have a penalty of at least jailtime in two years.

      I understand it that it's business and laws as usual here too, of course, but if they're enforced of leaving out user details, I wonder what exact differences their unconventional subscriber register has compared to a regular one. They don't seem to go into detail of that, and I'd guess that is the most interesting part here.
  • by appleprophet (233330) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:57AM (#15908556) Homepage
    I am very skeptical. My question is, how can they afford that much bandwidth? Given that their target market consists largely of P2P users, how can they tunnel all of a heavy bittorrent user's encrypted traffic for only $6.50 a month? It sounds to me like they should get into the ISP business or file hosting business instead...
  • This new political party is sure to cause a bit of panic all over the world, due to the extreme, overrated hype of piracy.

    Not all piracy is a bad thing. I mean, software these days is seriously overpriced. You could teach yourself some very basic programming skills (Visual Basic, for instance), and create a program that'll do exactly what the $100+ equivilant does.

    So of course people will pirate it. Why? Because it's rediculous to pay for something like that.

    Then there's music. Just to let you know, piracy HARDLY hurts the musician. Considering that 90% of the sales go to the record company before the artist ever sees a penny, they're really not "losing" much at all.

    Then again, sometimes piracy is a bad thing. Especially for the movie industry. Millions (if not billions) of dollars go into the making of a movie. While, yes, theater sales bring in tons of cash, DVD releases are also a huge factor in a movie's income. Downloading a movie hurts people a lot more than downloading music.

    Piracy has become such an overrated "controversy" lately that it's unbarable. Look at the price of blank CDs. Did you know that you have to pay a "piracy tax" for these? Yep. All because some higher-ups think that an extra buck or two will help save a movie studio or a record company. It's batty. What if I just want to burn copies of pictures from my family vacation? Now I've gotta pay the MPAA and RIAA some extra cash for something that they don't deserve? Get real.

    All these corporations think that they're helping people by attempting to foil piracy. Yes, they've got their hearts in the right places, but they're doing it all wrong. "Right track, wrong train" is a good saying for this. They really need to clean up their acts when suing people. I mean, they've gone so far as to sue old ladies who can barely turn their computer on, yet let huge pirates go unnoticed.

    Why's this?

    Because if they let big pirates continue doing their thing, then they get to keep on making more and more money with the "piracy taxes" and suing people left and right for WAY more than the material they've pirated is worth. They're letting people go to keep themselves in the game, which is horrible.



    Also, just a little side note, to anybody who thinks the RIAA or MPAA might be knocking on your door. Go ahead and go to court, but bring up the fact that an IP address is not a person. Since your IP is the only log they have of the download (even if they have the MAC, that'll only ID a computer, not a single person), you'll win in court. And they'll lose out on a bunch of money for the court date, as well. Two-for-one, if you ask me. =D
    • by patio11 (857072) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:12AM (#15908598)
      I run an independent software vendor (gross sales to date: $250 -- hey, its a hobby and if you're going to make fun do better first). It took me approximately 50 hours to write the software which I sell and the program's complexity approaches that of Notepad. Perhaps some people with far, far too much free time would say its ridiculous to pay me $25 when they could just spend the 50 hours themselves. Fine, I understand that -- then bloody write the thing yourself. In reality, everyone who comes up with that lame excuse spends 45 seconds trying variations on Google of crackz, serialz, and whatnot to find the latest Chinese hacker group to have broken my just-enough-to-keep-honest-men-honest registration scheme, and then 600 of them hit my web server in a day.


      Thats not enough for some cheeky bastards, though. After people have gotten their latest crackz, I get a surge of search results from Google for things legitimate customers never search for (e.g. Name of the Program V 1.0 download). I lost $10 last time I got the hacker surge because I bid on my own program name as an AdWords keyword and the "its not stealing, its copyright infringement!!!1" crowd literally picked my pocket for a quarter a click.

      • by bayankaran (446245) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:45AM (#15908688) Homepage
        its ridiculous to pay me $25 when they could just spend the 50 hours themselves...

        One of the issues I have with smaller shareware apps is the price - rather than $25 for your app, if you cut the price to say $10 more people will be tempted to pay rather than look for a crack/serial. And I am writing from experience.
        • by patio11 (857072) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @03:28AM (#15908794)
          I did due diligence before I opened my little business. First, the demand curve for software doesn't fit what you might think from a microecon 101 textbook. Price is a signal of quality, and $10 software is "crud" whereas $25 software which accomplishes what you are setting out to do is worth actually getting out ye olde credit card. The other wrinkle is that advertising costs money and its impossible to make money at the $10 price point if you advertise. For example, during my last week I made roughly half of my sales through Google AdWords, at the cost of roughly $10-15 per sale depending on the campaign. I then get $25 and split $1 with Paypal, leaving me with money in my pocket. Google will not decrease my CPC just because I charge less for my product.
        • I agree, but you will find slashdot swamped with people who think they have a 'right' to take your hard work, and cloak this theft under some truly lame argument about 'information wanting to be free'.
          In fact, I do have a right to copy and distribute anyone's writings, but the society in which I live gives the creator of those writings a limited monopoly on distribution. This is, in theory, so that he will continue to distribute other writings that will increase the sum total of knowlege when the monopoly has expired. (To be perfectly clear, copyright infringers do not "take work" as that is impossible, but I gathered what you meant)

          If your believe you have a right to take anything you need, regardless of your means to pay, i cant see how your not an anarchist or a communist.
          I believe all people have the right to take anything they need to live regardless of ability to pay. Oddly enough, I do consider myself a bit of an anarchist and am not ashamed to say it; do not make the mistake of taking my sig for my ideology though -- it is just something interesting I read. Since the topic is copyrighted works, none of which are essential for survival, it is odd that you would say that.

          Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
          Just as nobody is born with an innate right to sell episodes of "24" for whatever they wish. You seem to mistake copyright as being a property right. I assure you, it is not. Society has decided it is better for all of us if we give creators that monopoly on distribution that I spoke of. My society (well, politicians) thinks that the life of the author plus 70 years is the length of monopoly best to get people to distribute their works (with the overall goal being the enrichment of the public domain, mind you). I respectfully disagree.

          Reminder: copyright infringment is illegal, but not necessarily immoral.
  • by Aceticon (140883) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:09AM (#15908591)
    After all these years of the US government exporting moralistic and lobby-built laws (soft drug prohibition, "ethernal" copyright, etc), it's nice to see somebody trying to export their society's (swedish) values of respect for freedom and privacy, even if their current crop of mainstream politicians seems to be in the pockets of the US admistration.

    On the other hand, i expect that if the Relakks service becomes popular expect laws to be passed soon in other countries to curtail access to it.
      • by Aceticon (140883) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @05:54AM (#15909126)

        Yeah, I prefer the old, "amoralistic" laws myself, like prohibition of theft, murder, that kind of thing.

        Clue: most laws are "moralistic."

        Most laws are designed to make it possible for people to live together in the most productive way possible (thus NOT an anarchy and NOT the law of the strongest). These laws thus concern themselfs with avoiding that one person knowingly or purposelly causes harm to another person (such as murder, theft, etc), secure trading (contracts, sales laws, etc) and avoiding "tragedy of the commons" situations with shared resources (environmental laws, zoneing laws, etc)

        Any laws dictating what a person cannot do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own house and without causing any harm to others is a moralistic law in that it tries to forcifully deny to others the (lawfull) possibility of acting in certain ways, even though those actions would have no negative impact for third parties.

        Soft drugs prohibition is thus a moralistic law since smoking pot in the privacy of one's home causes no harm to others, while for example a law prohibiting driving while under the influence of drugs would NOT be a moralistic law since driving under influence strongly increases the chances of an accident which could harm to others.

  • by gronofer (838299) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:40AM (#15908679)
    I'm impressed with this idea, and particularly with one of their statements:
    The only way to enforce today's unbalanced copyright laws is to monitor all private communications over the Internet.
    This is one of the reasons I'm opposed to copyright myself.
  • by cliffski (65094) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:49AM (#15908705) Homepage
    "There are many legitimate reasons to want to be completely anonymous on the Internet"
    And copying a King Kong DVD rip is not one of them. Its sad when people take the legitmate point about anonymity that you might need for political organisations, journalists and whistle-blowers, and just use it as an excuse to facilitate warez and music copying.
    And calling yourselves the 'pirate party' is just plain insane. Whats wrong with "the consumer rights' party? or do they realsie thats way too hypocritical.
  • PPTP tunnel ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2006, @05:22AM (#15909045)
    Reading FAQ on their site it appears they use PPTP tunnel. While it's quick and easy to setup for clients, looks like it has some security flaws, quoting Poptop page about PPTP security (http://poptop.sourceforge.net/dox/protocol-securi ty.phtml):

    "PPTP is known to be a faulty protocol. The designers of the protocol, Microsoft, recommend not to use it due to the inherent risks. Lots of people use PPTP anyway due to ease of use, but that doesn't mean it is any less hazardous. The maintainers of PPTP Client and Poptop recommend using OpenVPN (SSL based) or IPSec instead."

  • by bananaendian (928499) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @05:31AM (#15909070) Homepage Journal

    The claim that this service provides anonymity and immunity to logging is only true in a very limited sense! This is basically a simple one level proxy which keeps access records which the authorities can get their hands on if they "suspect" a crime is being committed. Sweden is signator to various levels of intellegence sharing deals on international crime and terrorism so none of the Swedish laws on privacy have effect if some outside government presents "reasonable suspicion" of a crime being committed. And no, you don't have to be a terrorist or kiddy pron baron to be concerned here - tyrannical governments have been known throughout history to use any means to available to them suppress and oppress their citizens...

    Tor [eff.org] on the otherhand can claim to provide a level of true anonymity because of the 'onion routing' concept. A potential adversary would have to infiltrate the network with enough fake nodes to get to both the input end (to get the ip) and the the exit node (to get the traffic) and then do some traffic analysis to match these two together in order to figure out who is doing what. This being very resource intensive, such capability would only be available to the highest levels of intellegence gathering and even then only for a limited set of survaillance targets.

    • Re:Ahem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Raul654 (453029) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:49AM (#15908540) Homepage
      Tor has three intermediate hops between you and the destination; this only has one - so you get lower latency. Also, with Tor, your download speed is the minimum of the 4 intermediate connections' bandwidths. If one of those people happens to be a dial up user, you will be getting dial-up speeds.
      • Re:Ahem (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Canordis (826884) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:44AM (#15908686)

        Although this is better for speed, isn't it bad for anonimity? Traffic that has been over four hosts is harder to trace back than traffic that has hopped over a single host.

          • Re:Ahem (Score:5, Informative)

            by paulmac84 (682014) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @05:10AM (#15909019) Homepage
            This is what they're saying on their website [relakks.com]:

            RELAKKS is a company incorporated in Sweden. The service is basically a Swedish broadband subscription offered over the Internet. This means that the legal framework mainly consists of the The Electronic Communications Act 2003 389. What will this mean if:

            Swedish authorities or,
            Other organization or individuals demands access to information protected by RELAKKS?

            RELAKKS Safe Surf enjoys the strongest legal protection possible under Swedish Law because of the service type (pre-paid flat-rate service). This means that RELAKKS do not have to keep an ordinary customer database (to be able handle transactions etc.). This is of importance if forced to hand over information.

            If Swedish authorities can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a case for demanding subscription information from RELAKKS (they have to be of the opinion that if convicted the user will be imprisoned fined not enough). .

            RELAKKS then have to hand over the subscription information entered by you (but thats all). RELAKKS do not store any subscribtion information about you except what you entered yourself when signing up for the RELAKKS Safe Surf service.

            For Swedish authorities to force RELAKKS to hand over traffic data including your RELAKKS IP at a specific point in time, they will have to prove a case with the minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

            Regarding inquires from other parties than Swedish authorities RELAKKS will never turn over any kind of information.

            So as long as the Swedish government can prove beforehand that you will be convicted, then they'll hand over the data, otherwise it's no-go. And as for non-Swedish authorities, Relakks say they won't give them anything.

    • Re:Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)

      by frosty_tsm (933163) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:51AM (#15908546)
      It's in Sweden. Net Neutrality doesn't directly affect it.
      • Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mr_mischief (456295) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @09:23AM (#15909995) Journal
        Not outside the US, no.

        Inside the US, though, the customers of large US telecom companies may be firewalled off from the service by the very people they are paying for Net access. If not that, they may be slowdd to a trickle of traffic.

        If I was paying for access to "The Internet", and my service provider wasn't giving me access to everything I could legally access, then I'd be getting ripped off, wouldn't I?

        So for the rest of the world US net neutrality laws don't matter so much. For those of us in the US, they matter a great deal, even when the traffic starts overseas.

        • by Analogy Man (601298) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @08:01AM (#15909521)
          Democratic: Representative government where the people have free access to information about the government and the goverments access to information about citizens has checks and balances.

          Authoritarian: Government based on manipulation of power where access to government information is limited and access to citizen information by government is unfettered.

          Ask yourself which direction the US government is heading.

    • Re:Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:59AM (#15908564)
      As far as I understand the "lack of net neutrality" would only effect US* users of the aforementioned darknet. AFAIK for networks outside the US the net remains neutral**

      *Yes yes I know or packets traversing across a US network segment.
      **Neutral until the Telco's lobby the US administration to reign in them darn foreigners. After all its their divine right to extort money from those who have made a successful internet business.
      • Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms@infamCHEETAHous.net minus cat> on Tuesday August 15 2006, @09:02AM (#15909870) Homepage
        It's not an awesome idea because as much as it has it's good use there is also the darker side with pedophile, snuff and other crap that should not be tolerated.

        Snuff films are not real [snopes.com]. And the problem with pedophilia isn't the transmission of images of the sexual abuse of children, it's when actual sexual abuse of children goes on.

        Freedom has risks. If you have free elections, the "wrong" guys might win. If you have secure communications, "terrorists" might use them to make plans. If you have the right to keep and bear arms, "bad guys" may have guns.

        But if you believe in freedom, you're very very wary of the state getting to define who the "wrong" guys, the "terrorists", the "bad guys", are. Consider that Martin Luther King Jr. was a target of COINTELPRO; consider Nixon's "enemies list"; consider the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dredd Scott decision, the Alien and Sedition acts, the Red Scares, the concentration camps for Japanese Americans...

        you cant have a place where you can bend the rules forever, that's anarchy!

        And? "Anarchy" means no ruling hierarchy. Some people think that's a good idea [blackened.net], especially when it comes to communication. As Robert Anton Wilson put it [rawilson.com], "A monopoly on the means of communication may define a ruling elite more precisely than the celebrated Marxian formula of `monopoly in the means of production.' Since man extends his nervous system though channels of communication like the written word, the telephone, radio, etc., he who controls these media controls part of the nervous system of every member of society. The contents of these media become part of the contents of every individual's brain."

    • by Propaganda13 (312548) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @01:54AM (#15908551)
      FTA: "We got Dugg pretty hard and expect Slashdot to come visiting at any time now."
      • Welcome! You're late. :-)
      • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @07:48AM (#15909457)
        I think that there's something to be said here about that. To me it says that /. users are too lazy to go forage for their own articles and instead go cherry pick them off of digg. Why? Because the digg community picks the stories, not a handful of select people. If /. wants to continue to do things that way, I have no bones about, it's just interesting that the /. model lags behind other sites.

        The one thing that I think /. has over digg is the discussions and moderation system. I was reading the comments over at digg and I felt like I was in a room full of 3 year olds (insert joke here). At least here I feel like the least meaningful and mature comments carry more relevancy than most of what I read over there.
      • by 70Bang (805280) on Tuesday August 15 2006, @04:25AM (#15908917)

        There's very little in the actual document which isn't in the published article when it comes to cost.

        ...I would thihnk that charging comercially[sic] for the service is nessesary to keep it from becoming a spammer tool...

        Have you been living on Gilligan's Island?

        5eu/month is, as pointed out in the FA, at the current exchange rate: $6.359.

        Before Scotty Richter was castrated, he was bringing $2M into his office, yes, two million U$ monthly. And he wasn't the king of the mountain.

        Can you explain how $6.359/month going to make a spammer think twice about using the service? Particularly when you consider the anonymity. No more looking for open proxies & relays.

        They pay far, far, far more than that to set up shop in China, then send all of that crap back to the US. Most spam originates from the US as the 2003 U-CAN-SPAM law[1] basically gave them free reign, but the big boys still rely upon China.

        Here are the top 200 spammers responsible for 80% of the crap which is dropped in your inbox. [spamhaus.org]
        Some of these guys (e.g. Ralsky) have substantial setups in their basements or an office (when they-he aren't|isn't getting caught running around in nothing but a black thong -- yes, there's a picture of it in an anti-spam archive.

        But seriously. How do you think ~$6/month is going to stop a spammer. I'm not trying to present a loaded question here. I really do want to know your perspective on this because you may have insights no one else has considered.

        The only way I can see this not becoming a spam haven is if there's a volume limit for that price and you have to pay $x/volume for each increment after that.

        I'm all ears.

        _______________________________
        [1] Very effective, wouldn't you say? Has your volume of spam decreased (without human intervention to separate the wheat from the chaffe?)
    • Re:ah... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zontar The Mindless (9002) * <jon@@@hiveminds...net> on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:10AM (#15908593) Homepage
      I'm nervous after visiting the iranian president's blog page...

      I'm nervous when people are nervous about standing up for themselves and saying, "Go fuck yourself, I'll read whatever I damned well like."

      • Re:ah... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2006, @03:02AM (#15908742)
        I'm nervous when people are nervous about standing up for themselves and saying, "Go fuck yourself, I'll read whatever I damned well like."

        What country do you live in? I live in the USA where people voted in a facist administration that thinks the Constitution is a quaint document that is exactly where it belongs in a museum. If we could wrap copper around the founding fathers we wouldn't need foreign oil. Their spinning bodies could power the country for the next thousand years. If you mod this funny you aren't paying attention.

    • Re:Darknet? (Score:5, Informative)

      by man_ls (248470) <jkoebelNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday August 15 2006, @02:10AM (#15908595)
      I think the point is that it's (1) based in Sweeden, (2) encrypted end-to-end, (3) as anonymous as you want it to be based on the information you provide to them, and (4) fairly strongly protected legally in the jurisdiction it operates in.

      1 and 4 being pretty big for USians who are using it...2 for people whose ISPs filter. 3, dubiously so, as at some point they have your credit card saying that you have an account although I suppose that, if they don't store your tunnel account with your CC number, they have no way of getting to you personally.

      It doesn't matter if someone nefarious is on the same link-local segment sniffing all your traffic, if they can't identify through technological means who you are, and can't compel the provider through legal means either because they didn't keep that information or just won't give it over.
    • Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by crhylove (205956) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Tuesday August 15 2006, @03:07AM (#15908753) Homepage Journal
      Freedom of Speech doesn't jump to mind? Especially in this day and age of NSA wiretapping? I have no idea what you've been smoking in order to lack the imagination to see that one.

      rhY
    • Re:Right... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 15 2006, @04:09AM (#15908872) Homepage
      There's many reasons, some noble, some less noble. Anyone that wants to can easily think of reasons one migth want to be anonymous on the internet.

      For example;

      • You may want to blow the whistle on some illegal or unethical behaviour where you work, but fear losing your job.
      • You may want to critisize government, but fear negative consequences. (depending on where you live this may be from none up to and including imprisonment, torture or execution)
      • You may want to lobby for an unpopular position.
      • You may want to send email to your friends in the near east (I've got several friends in the UaE and Saudi-arabia) without ending up on the "no-fly" list.
      • You may want to help the police figthing corruption or mafia without yourself or your family ending up dead.
      • You may want to post anonymized nude photos online (for fun or profit) without exposing your identity.
      • If you're a boss, you may want to pose as an "outsider" and f.ex. contact your own support-department to get a picture of how said department works, as seen from the outside.
      • You may not *want* people to know you're collecting pictures of rhinos.
      • You may want to be able to discuss personal problems online without those you discuss it with knowing who you are.
      • You may want to look for love online without risking stalkers.

      There's a zillion reasons really. But more importantly, you shouldn't need any reason at all. The simple fact is, there exist people who would prefer, atleast sometimes, being anonymous online.