Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous' WikiLeaks-Like Project Tyler To Launch In December

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the those-are-nice-words-you've-leaked dept.

Encryption 101

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.

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The first rule of Tyler is... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768353)

... you do not talk about Tyler!

Re:The first rule of Tyler is... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41768501)

Tyler Vernon?

Re:The first rule of Tyler is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770645)

Vernon CaTaffy.

Re:The first rule of Tyler is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768555)

Tippecanoe?

Re:The first rule of Tyler is... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768627)

You can talk about Tippecanoe, but not Tyler too.

Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768361)

So would they censor the publication of the Anonymous membership?

Re:Censorship? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768691)

At one point most of the high profile hijinks were performed by only about 6 guys, but there is no "anonymous membership" per se.

And I'm not sure why anyone is asking about the cost of running something like this. That's one of the advantages of decentralized, P2P services... there's virtually no cost.

What they should worry about is everyone joining this swarm being labelled a terrorism suspect. The feds have pretty clearly demonstrated that they can track these people down. Nearly all of the ones causing problems are now in jail. So they may not be able to stop the service, but they sure can make a lot of people pay, via law enforcement.

Re:Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769737)

It sounds like Tor to me. Or perhaps a single, distributed filesystem over a routing system like Tor.

If anyone got something like this to work, reliably, anonymously, with minimal levels of participation... it would get used for sharing movies and music, first.

Re:Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41777093)

It sounds like Tor to me. Or perhaps a single, distributed filesystem over a routing system like Tor.

If anyone got something like this to work, reliably, anonymously, with minimal levels of participation... it would get used for sharing movies and music, first.

or just kiddie porn, like Freenet.

Re:Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768943)

No, such a list would just end up in the hands of the FBI. Anonymous has been infiltrated.

It's a trap! (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41768365)

eom

Re:It's a trap! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768507)

It could be a government funded honeypot

Re:It's a trap! (1)

zoloto (586738) | about 2 years ago | (#41774907)

With the source out there, we'd know relatively quickly if that were the case.

Will it make documents immediately available? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768397)

If this is another one of those OpenLeaks "Trust us to release your documents when WE choose--we're not a government honeypot, honest" operations, then no thanks. I'm allergic to honey myself.

Re:Will it make documents immediately available? (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 years ago | (#41772277)

The point everyone is missing is that Wikileaks does not just provide a technical service. They go through great lengths to protect the wistleblower by e.g. cleaning documents. Just publishing and keeping things online is reasonable easy. You don't need a technical solution, you need a process and you need to establish yourself as a trustworthy entity to be approached by whistleblowers.

Re:establish yourself as a trustworthy entity (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#41773795)

Despite a few humorous news stories, the Feds aren't stupid. So the age of insulting someone by calling them "tin foil hats" is fading. Off and on I am experimenting with pairing news stories with things like this one "Ooh New Shiny Service" with the followup story "Busted".

Having to live through the time delay in real time is becoming exhausting.

INB4 CIA operation W.T.F & COINTELPRO attickin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768421)

...like they successfully did with Wikileaks.

Operation W.T.F. [google.com]
COINTELPRO [cryptome.org]

I wrote "ATTACKING IT". Not my typo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769055)

Weird... somehow it became “attickin"...
If I hadn't specifically checked it before posting, I would have missed it and assumed it's my error. Nasty...

Has anyone else seen something like that?

Re:I wrote "ATTACKING IT". Not my typo. (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 2 years ago | (#41769193)

There's a maximum length on the subject line. If you submit too quickly it's easy to miss it.

Re:I wrote "ATTACKING IT". Not my typo. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41769307)

Repeatedly on my smartphone. (Antedeluvian froyo device.)

It has problems when text input from the hardware keyboard exceeds a certain threshold in typematic rate, and when certain system background agets feel the need to spam the alert bar. This causes keypresses to either become out of order in the input buffer, or for the content of that buffer to truncate. (The cutoff for typematic rate seems to be around 8 to 10 keypresses per second, and the usual offenders for alerter spam are things like tmobile's wifi calling daemon, the sms message alerter, and the software update alerter.)

I have been a victim of this quite frequently, leading many posters here to think I got my diploma from a crackerjack box.

Really, I just suffer behind a problematically implemented input device.

helpful Tyler? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768443)

who? this guy [knowyourmeme.com] ?

Anonymous/Tyler/KKK same thing. (1, Insightful)

cellurl (906920) | about 2 years ago | (#41768469)

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:Anonymous/Tyler/KKK same thing. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768825)

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.

Re:Anonymous/Tyler/KKK same thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768939)

You heard it, people. Do not question authority.

Re:Anonymous/Tyler/KKK same thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41771017)

Sure. Because being repeatedly raped is sooo much easier to put up with than being raped AND beaten for resisting - just bend over, take it in and you can quietly cry afterwards, but remember - as long as you get a cookie it's going to be all right. Only if you look at the actors in this sorry play, you'll notice that for some reason a 2 meter tall wrestler (society) is being raped by a fat midget with golden teeth (establishment). Why is this still happening I don't know, but surely it can't stay like that forever. I don't know about you, but I'm just waiting for the beacon to light up in my neighbourhood.

"Information wants to be free" (1, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41768515)

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 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?

Re:"Information wants to be free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768755)

Information wants to be free in the same way water wants to be downhill. Keeping secrets is leaky and expensive, and when the leak occurs, that information is available to the public forever. How much of a time delay you get before the secret's out is a matter of what expense you've gone to to keep it secret. Opportunity expenses like living without internet (which greatly slows things down) are also counted.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (4, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (4, Insightful)

Jessified (1150003) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#41770295)

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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

Jessified (1150003) | about 2 years ago | (#41770525)

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 support them.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41774637)

I do get why murderers want to hide their murdering of people though..

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41770173)

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, so probably doesn't care.

The analogy between personal privacy and governmental secrecy stems from the common fact that information makes future discussion difficult. My boss doesn't need to know how much I donate to my church when I ask for a raise, and foreign nations don't need to know the range of our latest fighter jet when we talk about disarming nukes.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 years ago | (#41770461)

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]

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41771527)

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 political effect to a minimum,

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

Shimbo (100005) | about 2 years ago | (#41771901)

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]

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | about 2 years ago | (#41776451)

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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41768809)

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.

Don't tell the MPAA/RIAA that (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41769183)

Once it is out it is out for good.

Our friends in Hollywood certainly think you can put the cat back in the bag.

Re:Don't tell the MPAA/RIAA that (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41770033)

Some of them do, due to ignorance, others think that the crusade is good for their careers in itself, regardless of the results.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41768877)

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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

Earache65 (681180) | about 2 years ago | (#41768993)

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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769021)

There's a lot of things I'm not okay with but I'm not such an entitled douchebag that I would demand my personal preferences be made into law. The law is based on violence and as such should only be used for defensive measures, not to engineer society as you see fit.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#41769681)

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:"Information wants to be free" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769981)

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 set up artificial barriers to prevent it. Without such barriers, the secret becomes "free" in the sense that I lose control over it.

Whether we should take action to restrain or promote the free flow of information is a completely separate discussion.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770245)

Your reading to much into a catch phrase or slogan.

Information once published or ducumented can be accessed and found by anyone with the will and force and knowledge to make it happen is what the slogan really means.

It means that ya'll are fuckkin bitches and retards for all yalls secrecy and shennanigans and if you dont want something "known" dont document or publish it or "hide it".

There is no "right" (inherent, natural or otherwise) that institutions hold over individuals in this regard, individuals can just keep their fucking mouths shut, goverments have no such liberty. Its not built into the human race or laws of physics of the universe. Its a delusional expectation by the power elite.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

Zagnar (722415) | about 2 years ago | (#41771867)

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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#41772193)

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.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41772861)

If you are going to compare a government keeping secrets from the people it serves with personal secrets, we might as well go one step further.

You clearly are not arguing for keeping sexual partners secret, the truth is you murdered two people and raped their child, and wish to keep it secret from the authorities and victims families. Otherwise you wouldn't be pushing so hard for the "right" to murder and rape without coincidences.

So answer me, Why should we be taking ethical advice from a murderer rapist again?

Re:"Information wants to be free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41774151)

You don't understand the saying either. It means that information doesn't want to be controlled, or limited from bring distributed.

Strange that only you don't get it.

Re:"Information wants to be free" (1)

kmoser (1469707) | about 2 years ago | (#41780761)

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.

December 21? 2012? (1)

M4n (1472737) | about 2 years ago | (#41768561)

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.

Re:December 21? 2012? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768887)

While the date was pretty much a gimme and chosen deliberately, the "2nd and 3rd" and "Myansssss" is a work of art. I salute you, and also Eris.

Just like the progression of music sharing (1)

Covalent (1001277) | about 2 years ago | (#41768563)

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.

Re:Just like the progression of music sharing (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41769769)

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.

Re:Just like the progression of music sharing (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41770593)

The atrophy is a fundamental limit, so long as storage is finite. Tweaking cache management may slow it down, but it has to happen.

Re:Just like the progression of music sharing (0)

zoloto (586738) | about 2 years ago | (#41774921)

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.

Re:Just like the progression of music sharing (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41779519)

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 Freenet any less "free" as in cost, and minimally so in speech.

Not that I've used it in the past 10 years... it's just not worth it.

A More Useless Freenet? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768597)

What will this do that Freenet does not already do?

Re:A More Useless Freenet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769811)

Become hunted ruthlessly by the Feds...

Re:A More Useless Freenet? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 2 years ago | (#41770141)

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

Re:A More Useless Freenet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41771709)

The whole goal of Freenet is to provide the exact same thing as this Tyler is suppose to.

Sheesh kids are stupid. I can't tell if it's a case of NIH or just plain lack of knowledge.

Sounds like Tor (2)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#41768607)

P2P? Encrypted? Decentralized? Sounds like Tor to me.

Why not just set up a Tor hidden service and be done with it?

Re:Sounds like Tor (2)

Meneth (872868) | about 2 years ago | (#41768945)

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.

Re:Sounds like Tor (0)

zoloto (586738) | about 2 years ago | (#41774937)

tor is not "centralized" freenet is not "free" either, it being written in java

Re:Sounds like Tor...um no, Freenet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770815)

Not Tor. Freenet.

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

This is exactly what Freenet was designed for.

Re:Sounds like Tor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770875)

Not Tor, but an Osiris portal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_%28Serverless_Portal_System%29

But there is no mention about what software Anonymous will be using.

much better idea (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:much better idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769295)

Or you could simply use Freenet as-is.

Re:much better idea (0)

zoloto (586738) | about 2 years ago | (#41774947)

freenet is not free. it's written in java which is not open source and not free. java is shit anyways.

Re:much better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770683)

That would be 100% secure, fake-proof, and block-resistant just like the bitcoin network.

LOL. Dumbass.

"funding" ?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768639)

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?

Re:"funding" ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769061)

Funny you should mention Gnutella since it is one of the worst clients for maintaining a user's privacy given how easily the Gnutella network can be surveilled.

Re:"funding" ?? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41770611)

True. But Gnutella wasn't designed for privacy.

Re:"funding" ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41772241)

Right, and I figure that the Anonymous client for Tyler will be as good at protecting a leaker's privacy as, say, the LOIC was protecting DDOSers.

Why would 'funding' be needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768655)

I don't get why people seem to always raise questions about funding with ideas like these. It's not like they're going to need to get hundreds of servers or something. If a bunch of people can spread around a torrent amongst each other using their own internet connections, and if a group of hackers can develop functional pieces of open-source software in their spare time, then I don't see how project Tyler would need any sort of funding.

ENTERPRISE MEMBERSHIP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768847)

>A hacker who claims to be a member of the hacking collective Anonymous
>a member of the hacking collective Anonymous
>a member of
>the hacking collective Anonymous

I shiggy.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768857)

You can't stop the signal.

Re:Obligatory (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about 2 years ago | (#41769797)

But they can kill you with a sword. How weird is that?

Source of Funding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768865)

Wouldn't most of the funding come in the form of free services provided by the tens of thousands of people that are more than happy to run nodes?

Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768871)

So Wikileaks gets criticized for the lack of transparency about releasing its internal financial data, but Anonymous gets a pass because it's...wait, why would they get a pass again?

"whether it matches Wikileaks' own security." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41768913)

Of course it doesn't. Even if the platform itself is secure, that's only part of the problem. The person submitting the documents might have failed to remove tags or other information that could identify them; with wikileaks you have a second pair of eyes watching for this. With Tyler as described here, the software may* be secure but the user isn't, one mistake on their part and it'll all fall down.

*not sure that something like this can be made secure using a software only solution; even if the network is immune to hacking, that doesn't mean that connections to it can't be traced to their origin in the same way a Bittorrent connection can be tracked to it's original network.With IPv6 becoming more prevalent, it may lead back to the specific machine of origin. The problem then becomes access; to get the files on the network without being traced, the whistle-blower must hand it off to someone else offline; how do you do that and still guarantee that the data has not been modified by the intermediary? how does the blower know that the intermediary is trustworthy?

By my calculations (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769067)

We should have Tyler Liv in 8 weeks - see for yours elves.

And then one week later... (3, Interesting)

bragr (1612015) | about 2 years ago | (#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).

Hackers on steroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41769821)

He's an official member of Anonymous. Makes sense

This shadowy group is portrayed accurately in the news, that's for fucking sure

flooded by gov nodes (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 2 years ago | (#41770431)

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.

The Internet cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770453)

The Internet cancer [kimmoa.se] .

some thoughts... or just odd ramblings... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41770673)

...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 chaos "Anonymous" because it seemed to them to be an organised, centralised movement (which it is not). Like the World Wide Web, it's continuously growing, evolving and learning. The idea of Anonymous is self-perpetuating. Such is the nature of ideas, and 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 from those who control it - or think they can control it.

Long may Anonymous the idea thrive, because like it or not, if you have something to hide from the people you serve as a public servant in whatever capacity (from police officer to President), it will be exposed.

Re:some thoughts... or just odd ramblings... (1)

lennier (44736) | about 2 years ago | (#41773027)

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?

Re:some thoughts... or just odd ramblings... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41776177)

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.

So it's like Freenet? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41770711)

Does this offer any advantage over the already-established Freenet? Any at all?

Torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41770905)

Anonymous could simply post a torrent link. (Add an MD5 and enable transport encryption if you so choose)

I wonder what the conversation was like between (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about 2 years ago | (#41771345)

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). Oh. Nice. We have the Assange double in place. Opps! Did I say that out loud? IT Staff: OK, next email. That looks... OK. Where's the Start button on this stupid thing...? Anyone? OK.. ifconfig... it's the same IP!! CIA handler: ZOMG! He's here in the house!? IT Staff: Yeah. We're done here. Packing up. Later dudes, dudette.

Funding? What for? (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | about 2 years ago | (#41772173)

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 when there are eighty millions of us. Extraterritoriality, it doesn't work for Kim Dotcom, but _I_'m not a superstar. So aren't all the other Anons, except the one scapegoat they always manage to tell the media to out as our "leader"... They'll never get it before we get their authority out of reality.

Tyler exists already (1)

Spectrumanalyzer (2733849) | about 2 years ago | (#41774591)

...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.

and this will work? NO-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41776189)

" by everyone who downloads and deploys the software."

are you going to run software supplied by the group known as "anonymous"?

will you let anyone else?

Toadies reference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41776891)

Is Tyler a reference to the song by the Toadies?

If that is a reference to fight club (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41777375)

The creators should just please kill themselves now.

Fight club was overrated, it really wasn't that good, if you think it was an amazing tale that taught you something, you are a simpleton.

wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41778185)

How is this better then wikileaks? For however shitty they are at least wikileaks goes through a removes names and censors the information. Just dumping all the information to everyone is a totally stupid idea and was the whole reason wikileaks was setup to prevent such stupidity.

End of the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41786757)

Smart way for Tyler to make it go online exactly when the world is supposed to end.
Just incase he gets arrested.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>