beeteecee said:
Pirocco said:
Hence I said "Redirect/wipe those from the dns records, and people will need to make new, and other people will need to find the new, and the latter can aswell include governments, that, guess what, just repeat what they did with the old, making the whole a chase story."
Kind of like how you couldn't find silk road in google originally? People still found it. The government was unable to seize the domain until they caught the guy physically. There are many domains the governments would like to seize, I'm sure, but they haven't, and they cannot currently stop people from visiting such sites.
The people who counted were still able to find Wikileaks before it existed on a government controlled network. I just think it's a non issue what you're saying, It also seems to be coming from a pessimistic "nothing we can do, so lets just give up" angle.
I can't remember being unable to load piratebay in 10 or so years of occasional use so I was surprised to see your post about it. I very much agree that events these days are a cat and mouse game though, It has always been like that and it always will be. My argument can be boiled down very simply: Cryptography is not something the government can simply decide they would like to control, and then control it.
'Vires in numeris', as they say.
They cannot stop people from visiting? What's that 'STOP' page then? What is the filtering of Googles search results then? That latter doesn't even need governments force, just money, as indicated by the redirection and search results order tampering for advertisement and analysis purposes. In some past, a Google result link was a direct link. Since some years its relayed to dedicated Google servers for these purposes, and they don't show the direct link anymore, rather the contrary, they encrypt it and show only the first part of the url (site). googlesyndication.com googleadservices.com google-analytics.com and if you look at the http request headers you clearly notice 'intimate' data exchange traffic with facebook/twitter/etc.
Pessimistic? I just say the things I see. Lets just give up? Give up what? Bitcoin? I didn't say to stop using bitcoin, I said that it has some serious dependency issues (including governments tolerance) that property under own direct control hasn't, which matters especially in the case escaping governments theft, as said, what is worth a hedging method that depends on the goodwill of what is hedged against.
Ofcourse things have always been a cat and mouse chase, but which things? Until a couple decades ago, few had internet, and the cat didnt bother. Now, most have internet, and the cat bothers, and acts. If bitcoins market would compete legal tender currency, be sure the cat will jump to the foreground, using the typical variety of excuses we all know.
And cryptography is easily defeated: block the carrier of the data. If one speaks gibberish, shut his mouth. Control success.
And that's just the more 'rude' way. Cryptography is about decoding strings using keys. Sometimes makers of crypting methods insert specific weaknesses on purpose, as demanded by government elements. Everything what hackers can without privileges, can government, with privileges, surely too.
