Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Privacy The Media Your Rights Online

Anonymous' WikiLeaks-Like Project Tyler To Launch In December 101

Posted by timothy
from the those-are-nice-words-you've-leaked dept.
hypnosec writes "A hacker who claims to be a member of the hacking collective Anonymous has revealed that the hacktivist group is working on a Wikileaks-like service dubbed Tyler and that it will be launched on December 21. The Anonymous member revealed that the service will be decentralized and will be based on peer-to-peer service, unlike Wikileaks, thus making Tyler rather immune to closure and raids. The site will serve as a haven for whistleblowers, where they can publish classified documents and information. The hacker said in an emailed interview that 'Tyler will be P2P encrypted software, in which every function of a disclosure platform will be handled and shared by everyone who downloads and deploys the software.'" That sounds like a lot to live up to. Decentralized, attack-resistant and encrypted all sound nice, but I'm curious both about the funding it would take, and whether it matches Wikileaks' own security.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous' WikiLeaks-Like Project Tyler To Launch In December

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:17PM (#41768353)

    ... you do not talk about Tyler!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It could be a government funded honeypot

      • by zoloto (586738)
        With the source out there, we'd know relatively quickly if that were the case.
  • The guy had a bomb in his shoe. Q: What was the result?
    Now all you smart /.-ers guess what Tyler will do?

    You guessed it, more government, more SOPA. Wise up boys, keep it in your pants.

    Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      SOPA and friends aren't going to go away if we play nice. We have a choice between a creeping and unresisted loss of freedom, and an outright war where at least we have a chance of prevailing.

      There is a reason that even as pacifists we remember Churchill more fondly than Chamberlain, despite the former getting way more of his people killed.

  • I think this phrase is vastly misunderstood.

    People take it to mean, "If there's any information out there that I want, I should be able to have it, regardless of the consequences."

    That was never the case, historically. Information wanting to be free means that when market forces restrict our access to factual information, like how a PDP-11 allocates memory, that information should be liberated.

    That has nothing to do with piracy, secrets, etc. which have secondary consequences.

    Ask yourself: if someone got a

    • by mspohr (589790) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:44PM (#41768767)

      This is not about personal privacy.
      This is about governments and other public bodies trying to keep secrets from the people who elected them (or, in some cases, didn't elect them). One could argue that this information should be freely available (with reasonable restrictions) but in an effort to cover up and deceive, governments keep the information secret.
      Wikileaks seemed to take a lot of effort to prevent personal private information from disclosure.
      Many governments have "Freedom of information" laws which specifically grant access to government information so they do recognize that information should be free. However, there is always a battle about where to draw the line with governments wanting to be more restrictive and "the people" wanting more information.

      • by Jessified (1150003) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @03:16PM (#41769311)

        Indeed. Comparing individual privacy interests with government secrecy is a pretty stupid analogy.

        Government are not individuals with inalienable rights. They service (or rather should service) their constituents. The only government secrets that are worth keeping are the ones that revealing would actually harm the people, rather than the government.

        In an ideal world, there should be no conflict between the people of a democracy and its government...a perfect government would already be serving its people's interests.

        • In an ideal world, there should be no conflict between the people of a democracy and its government...a perfect government would already be serving its people's interests.

          And when my interests differ significantly from yours, someone is going to be unhappy.
          • I'm not sure your point, as it has no bearing on what I said. Are you conflating the interests of the government with the interests of an individual?

            As I said, secrets that are in the genuine interests of the people are worth keeping (i.e. true national security concerns). Secrets that the government wants to keep to avoid the embarrassment of officials are not. I'm not sure where the controversy is. I get why officials don't want to be embarrassed but what I don't get are the individual citizens who suppor

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        Ask yourself: if someone got a copy of all of your secrets, including your financial records and (lack of) sexual partners, maybe some stuff you'd rather bury for a century or two, and published it, would you be OK with that?

        Many governments have "Freedom of information" laws which specifically grant access to government information so they do recognize that information should be free. However, there is always a battle about where to draw the line with governments wanting to be more restrictive and "the people" wanting more information.

        Here's a crazy idea... how about governments are only allowed to bury information for 30 or 40 years? In terms of political climate, that's about equal to the two generations that seem reasonable for personal privacy. By that time, any security hazards posed by the information's release would long since have passed, and technology would even progress far enough to make classified military technology obsolete. Anybody who was involved in a particular classified project wouldn't be in power any more anyway, s

        • by mspohr (589790)

          I don't think the problem is with old information.
          The problem is with current information that the people in power want to hide. I guess the Wikileaks videos of US helicopters killing unarmed civilians are a good example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik [youtube.com]

        • The purpose of publishing such information is to keep the citizentry informed so they can rationally act on it through voting. What's the point of publishing information that's thirty years out of date? "Before you were born, we started a program to torture and assassinate. The eventual disposition of the program is still classified."

          Classification schemes create a sort of nobility, entrusted with knowledge of "what's really going on" (tm), while the hoipolloi are told fairy tales designed to keep their pol

        • by Shimbo (100005)

          Here's a crazy idea... how about governments are only allowed to bury information for 30 or 40 years?

          That's traditionally the way that it worked in the UK and various other countries before FoI laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_year_rule [wikipedia.org]

      • Since when did Anonymous get into hosting pirate bay like sites. Why are they hosting there own? This whole thing started cause megauplaod take down and wikileaks founder getting arrested. Not sure what they have planned here or what they want to prove.
      • This is about governments and other public bodies trying to keep secrets from the people who elected them (or, in some cases, didn't elect them).

        That sounds good on paper, but in reality, there will always need to be secrets. Running a spy agency is essential and needs to be secret. Development of new weapons programs need to be secret. There is a lot of data kept by governments which affects individual citizens, local areas or groups, and that, too, should be kept secret.

        The "publicize it all and claim it'

    • I would, and if I wasn't it would be pointless to try and do anything about it anyway. You cannot control information. Nobody can. Once it is out it is out for good.
    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Is not about not relevant information. Neither about i.e. vulnerabilities in the system searching for attackers to exploit them. Wikileaks showed what the government that you elected to represent you really did in your name. A vote shouldnt be a blank cheque. Wikileaks or Tyler shouldnt be necessary, the government should be transparent enough to their citizens.
    • by Earache65 (681180)
      Agreed, sorry no mod points to give. A bigger issue here is: misinformation wants to be free too. Maybe even more so than the useful kind, and I don't see an anonymous, hacktivist organization as a very useful source for reliable information.
    • by poity (465672)

      My understanding (which I admit is without context) is that it describes the dynamic between two forces: The effort needed to keep something secret will always be greater than the effort needed to expose that same thing, resulting always in a pressure towards exposure. Now, couple that with our propensity for anthropomorphic explanations, and we get "Information wants to be free".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Information wanting to be free means that when market forces restrict our access to factual information, like how a PDP-11 allocates memory, that information should be liberated.

      Wrong. "Information wants to be free" has nothing to do with "should" any more than "Water wants to flow downhill" does. Both are amoral observations about the world, not a call to action.

      It means that it's extremely difficult to keep information contained, because once it gets out, it tends to propagate because there are no natural constraints on its ability to reproduce. e.g. if I tell you a secret, I have forever lost the ability to take it back, and if I don't want it getting out, I have to actively

    • by Zagnar (722415)

      Ask yourself: if someone got a copy of all of your secrets, including your financial records and (lack of) sexual partners, maybe some stuff you'd rather bury for a century or two, and published it, would you be OK with that?

      I would be very much displeased if someone released information regarding my private life for all to see. However, freedom of information should flow both ways. If information on everyone was released, all sexual partners, all drugs they've done in college, all the strange porn they've looked at on a whim, I expect we could get past this puritanical set of morality that Americans have and realize we're all a bit odd.

    • by bug1 (96678)

      Ask yourself: if someone got a copy of all of your secrets, including your financial records and (lack of) sexual partners, maybe some stuff you'd rather bury for a century or two, and published it, would you be OK with that?

      If i found out all your secrets and didnt care, would you be OK with that ?

      Privacy/Secrecy is only a problem when everyone else has it and you dont; In an egalatarian society there is no problem with such things.

    • by kmoser (1469707)
      No. "Information wants to be free" is a comment on the innate, entropic nature of information, i.e. that it tends towards a path of openness.
  • If you spell anonymous backwards and substitute each 2nd and 3rd letter respectively for a different letter you get something like Myansssss. Which is pretty spooky if you ask me. Summat dont smell right.
  • 30 years ago, music sharing was copying cassettes...in person. And sharing government secrets was done largely in person, too, spy to spy agency.

    15 years ago, music sharing was Napster. Downloading from a centralized source. Ditto for Wikileaks.

    Today, music sharing is "in the cloud", decentralized, private, and often encrypted. Seems only natural for Project Tyler (which desperately needs a new name) to do the same.
    • 30 years ago, music sharing was copying cassettes...in person. And sharing government secrets was done largely in person, too, spy to spy agency.

      15 years ago, music sharing was Napster. Downloading from a centralized source. Ditto for Wikileaks.

      Today, music sharing is "in the cloud", decentralized, private, and often encrypted. Seems only natural for Project Tyler (which desperately needs a new name) to do the same.

      Sounds good, except Project Freenet came out around the same time as Napster (late 1999, early 2000), and does everything Project Tyler is attempting to do.

      The downside to Freenet is that unused content will atrophy -- but supposedly this would work well for leaks, as you'd have a limited time to grab the information that was leaked, but unimportant stuff would eventually expire.

      • The atrophy is a fundamental limit, so long as storage is finite. Tweaking cache management may slow it down, but it has to happen.
      • by zoloto (586738)
        When you get something that's not written to use a proprietary system like Java, then we'll talk. Till then, "freenet" really isn't "Free" and it's utter shit.
        • When you get something that's not written to use a proprietary system like Java, then we'll talk. Till then, "freenet" really isn't "Free" and it's utter shit.

          In the same vein, Apple computers are better than Microsoft computers because they can use more than 8.2 characters for filenames...

          Really... you HAVE heard of OpenJRE, right? Besides that, ALL software runs on proprietary systems unless you've found a way to actually set up a system with fully open hardware, embedded software and firmware.

          Sure, you can have paranoia regarding JRE having a back door in it somewhere... but you could say the same thing about the chips in your computer. It doesn't make Freen

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:33PM (#41768597)

    What will this do that Freenet does not already do?

    • Well if freenet manages not to build upon flawed releases of the JVM, I guess it is unbeatable for this kind of applications.

  • by stevegee58 (1179505) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:33PM (#41768607) Journal
    P2P? Encrypted? Decentralized? Sounds like Tor to me.

    Why not just set up a Tor hidden service and be done with it?
    • by Meneth (872868)
      A Tor hidden service is not decentralized; it still runs on a single computer and is controlled by one or a few people. A truly decentralized system, such as Freenet, has no admin and can't be controlled.
      • by zoloto (586738)
        tor is not "centralized" freenet is not "free" either, it being written in java
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Not Tor. Freenet.

      A hidden service in Tor is centralized. Docs on Freenet are decentralized.

      This is exactly what Freenet was designed for.

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:35PM (#41768633)
    For all of you that understand the technical inner workings of the bitcoin network (from what I've seen in comments, that's zero of you), you can very easily use the open source source code for the client but rig it to run in more of a litecoin configuration and store text data instead of bitcoin transactions. That would be 100% secure, fake-proof, and block-resistant just like the bitcoin network. Of course, once a block is written, by definition, it is impossible to modify so it would be unmoderatable and heavily spammed. That's actually a problem with my idea and theirs. P2P means anyone can put anything in it they want and there is no master moderator that can delete it.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Or you could simply use Freenet as-is.

      • by zoloto (586738)
        freenet is not free. it's written in java which is not open source and not free. java is shit anyways.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Decentralized networks don't need "funding". That's the whole point. You install some software and you're a node in the network. Haven't you people ever used Gnutella?

  • by bragr (1612015) * on Thursday October 25, 2012 @03:14PM (#41769257)
    And then one week later it will be full child porn and paranoid conspiracy theories and very little in the way of leaked documents. Such is the fate of all darknets I guess. (see Tor, Freenet, I2P, etc).
  • Will the secure P2P system be secure if the government happens to be running a significant portion of the P2P nodes? It seems like with Tor, the only hope is that the nodes are trusted. Sure, if only 5% of the nodes are compromised, the chance of hitting enough compromised nodes so the watcher knows where you are is low, but if 50% of the nodes are compromised, your promise of security is broken.

  • ...I could post this as AC and legitimately claim to be a "member" of the Anonymous collective with no further proof required. Such is the nature of Anonymous. It isn't an organised group, like say, oh, Scientology, where membership is proven with funny handshakes and laminated cards. You get what I mean there. Anonymous is Legion. It's an organic entity brought about by the chaotic actions of many which seems to be working toward a common goal, and someone had the bright idea of calling that organised chao

    • by lennier (44736)

      once an idea is born it will do one of two things: it will propagate or it will die. This one is doing the former because whatever you think, it is liberating information that people need to know

      ... such as random website passwords and credit card numbers. Yes, if by "people" you mean "organised crime". There's no other legitimate use for that data.

      That's the problem with decentralised undefined social movements with no codes of behaviour - they can easily morph into a random hate mob without even noticing that they have. Anonymous, or factions of it, reached that point about five years ago. Why would anyone want to continue to associate themselves with that?

      • It was so nice of you to chip away until only the parts you needed to make your point remained. Now, please put what you quoted back into context and try again.

        There's a fundamental difference between "wanting" to know something and "needing" to know something. You do not "need" to know someone else's credit card details. You may very well "need" to know that your GOVERNMENT is committing WAR CRIMES IN YOUR NAME.

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @04:59PM (#41770711)
    Does this offer any advantage over the already-established Freenet? Any at all?
  • the interviewer, his CIA handler, and the IT staff. CIA handler: ask it what it's wearing! No, no! Ask him what his favorite "Hackers" character is. I bet it's Angelina Jolie. Interviewer and IT staff: Shaw! More like Jonny Lee Miller, nerd! IT Staff: OK... here's the headers for the first email reply... and. That's a Chinese IP. OK. CIA handler: Ooh! So he's in China. I knew it knew it! IT Staff: (wilting glare) IT Staff: OK, this one is from... Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Huh. CIA handler: (checks Blackberry).
  • Decentralized, attack-resistant and encrypted all sound nice, but I'm curious both about the funding it would take, and whether it matches Wikileaks' own security.

    What funding? I'd host it on every device I own. How many more Anons like me are there, again?

    Posting signed, wince I'm in Belgium, in a small European country no one really important gives any shit about, and a with laws so localized they don't matter in teh world... I'm untouchable as far as the US DOJ is concerned.

    Not that I'd concern them. Not

  • ...but under a different name.

    You can hook up to it from a tor node, it's easy to find if you really want to see it. It has tons of information on just about anything, it's something of a nightmare as it has way too much info, and the search facilities sucks, but it is really endless. After reading stuff in there, I'm not surprised about anything anymore, sadly...don't go there if you like it where you are now. I wouldn't return there. Sometimes life IS better IN the matrix.

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...