News:

Testimonial: "Yeah, wasn't expecting it. Near shat myself."

Main Menu

The Internet 2: The New Batch

Started by Cramulus, October 19, 2009, 03:29:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Triple Zero

Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 23, 2009, 04:35:24 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 23, 2009, 02:57:03 AM
In a worst case scenario any encrypted network traffic, which the government software installed at every ISP cannot decipher, is automatically flagged as suspicious. Any attempt to hide the content in images or teXt mUnGIng will be similarly detectable. In other words - in a worst case scenario you can't piggyback on the existing infrastructure unless it's a really low-bandwidth message such as a predefined trigger.

I've been trying to get people into the idea that they should encrypt everything they can, just to throw up chaff for things that actually should be encrypted.

yeah, exactly. we started a thread for this purpose over here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21479.0

it would be great if people would just start encrypting their emails like they wrap envelopes around their paper letters.

but even apart from that, there already exist large streams of "familiar" encrypted network traffic even right now. and you can't really distinguish one stream of encrypted data from another (at least you can distinguish any stream of data to perfectly look like a "familiar" one). any connection you make to a https website, the Skype protocol and SSH are just a few examples that come to mind. you could already currently piggyback on those with some medium-low bandwidth streams without suspicion.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

rygD

Thanks, 000...I needed another toy to play with, instead of catching up on work and school...and you don't even use it.  I have never been able to get others to regularly use GPG/PGP.  I mess around with it from time to time.  However that could add yet another layer of protection if it is required on internet 2.

The problems I can't get my head around would be where to look for secure but cheap equipment and how to use it.  I suppose we would be able to get cheap routers, and go that route, but I am far from being knowledgeable enough to plan a network of that size from the ground up.  Hell, I don't know how to work with the local area sized wireless shit you guys were talking about...

We could use some of the software that is out there to add voice to it, have a vlan for that.  Another for data. Another that the average user wouldn't have to worry about so the rest of us could keep an eye on everything to make sure there are no issues, and fix anything.  Does anyone know what we would need to do for the basic shit?  Say you are my neighbor and we are trying to create this network, and we want to go through the currently existing internet.  I deal more with routers and switches than computers, so I do not know if you could get away with not having a router or something at each node.  A little software could be used to get us talking back and forth on the network and making it secure.

It needs to use this to access it, just because it is cool (blame Entropia Universe): http://www.basiccard.com/index.html?news.htm

If you use it to spit out a one time code thing to gain access to the network (so now we need servers). You could just use the smart card, but that isn't as fun.  If it uses the cards that are combination contact and contectless it would provide more options, but I am not a fan of RFID for anything more than keeping track of my pets right now, so it would need to be stored in something to shield it until it is used.

Perhaps having everything stored on a thumb drive will also work.  I like the itty bitty ones from Kingmax because they are small, people don't know what they are when they see them sometimes, and while I feel they are fairly durable, if I needed to physically destroy it I doubt I would have trouble, either by burning it, smashing it, or if things get really desperate, chewing it up and possibly swallowing it.  It would seem they are a more sensible solution so that you don't have to work all the issues of trying to distribute the physical devices.

Still so much more reading to do.
:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Triple Zero

RygD, I would like to suggest you first learn how the current Internet works, then. It's not gone yet, there's still time, and you can learn a lot.

- first off, routers are already cheap. you buy em at the eletronica store for .. i dunno, $40? (I have no idea TBH) but lots of people have some spare lying around from some old Internet subscription. also, it helps if you realize that a router and a computer are both basically the same thing. they both have a network card and some network cables and a processor. the difference is that a router usually has more cables and a much less powerful processor (just to route the packets around), but I would guess they are still about as powerful as a desktop computer 8 years ago or something. So a router can be programmed to act as a (weak) computer or webserver, and a computer can be programmed to function (among other things) as a router. Routers also have the advantage that in general they're always on.

- I wouldnt recommending creating separate streams for voice and data because all data is data. the separate stream for maintenance that "regular people" wouldnt need to worry about sounds like an extremely bad idea if you wanna keep the thing entirely open. at least it kind of smells to me like the "secret admin boards" approach we loathe so much on PD.

- About thumbdrives, I know for a fact that SD cards are nearly indestructible. You can drive over them with a car, and another 2GB one survived the fire in my house last year (dunno how hot it got though, it was in a camera). Your average USB stick is still better than oldskool floppys or CDROMs, but not as good as an SD card. Wait rereading that, you were looking for one that is easy to destroy. I'd go for smashing first and then possibly burning.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Requia ☣

MicroSD cards, you can flush em, eat em, etc if you need to get rid of em in a hurry.  No evidence of destruction of evidence so to speak.  If you want USB you can get USB adapters for microSD that are smaller than most thumb drives.  If you need indestructible instead, microSD in an SD adapter is recommended for that footage of the cops boot coming down on your camera (haven't really tried this myself).

There are always programs that will overwrite with 0s and then reformat, making the thumb drive/memory card look brand new.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Triple Zero

an SD card will prolly survive a cop's boot, yeah. if you flush a MicroSD it will probably survive that as well. And if you eat it without chewing, you can probably get it back some 36 hours later as well :-)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

rygD

Thanks for the advice, 000.  I am looking to learn more, and I'm currently taking classes.  As for the routers, as I said, I am pretty sure you can get them cheap.  I did a quick check of the prices on what I have next to me right now (Cisco 2651s), and they can be had for under $100.  I know others are much less, and  as you stated,  other equipment could accomplish the same goals, maybe for much less.  Could you have the computer you are using to access the network handle everything?

I work mostly with cisco equipment, and it seems they may try to sell people on using seperate VLANs.  The 3rd VLAN was for management.  I don't see why the end user would need access, and if they did they could do stuff remotely.  I do understand what you are saying though, however if someone pisses someone off, how would it be helpful allowing them to cripple the network.  Others would have to go back and clean up the mess, then they could do it again.  But you can't really trust the people running the network.

Pricing micro sd, they are very affordable in hc, and due to size they do seem to be a decent way to go if they can be destroyed easily enough.  Do you think it is feasible to use a micro sd card or something similar and just use software so that you could take that with you and avoid messing with hardware other than computers and your current internet connection, like what I asked in the first paragraph, or would it slow down computers too much, and take out entire sections of the network when someone disconnects (this shouldn't be hard to overcome)?  What I mean is perhaps running some simple virtual machines or programs to set up the network, use encryption to secure it, then run all traffic through tor or something(or would tor slow it down and be counterproductive).  I  see the possibility of frequently not being able to acces data or some services when a node leaves the network.  With this we could remove most of the cost, though you might have an issue with computers that don't meet the requirements to run some of the software.  It would need to be able to run cross platform without needing superuser access.  I still think you need something that would restrict access to the network or identify you (one time code, etc).  This could allow nodes to cut off those who act maliciously, or prevent them from being able to access the network at all for a limited period.  I still like the idea of using hardware so I can use an Apple IIe to connect and get cheap voip hardware.

Wow,  I must sound like even more of a loser to all of you than I do to myself.
:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Rococo Modem Basilisk

I had an Apple ][e. It's not that cheap, now that they are antiques ;-)


I am not "full of hate" as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

rygD

Enki, I have 8 of them.  I bought them all together for $2 about a year or so ago.  It was great when I opened the box and found out that they all had cards in them.  One was a platinum.  They originally came from a school.  They didn't have power cables, but those are easy to get.  I have ideas for 3 or 4 and want to fix up the rest as best I can (some missing keys, might have to replace power adapters, as 1 or 2 are bad) and sell them.  I was looking at getting an Uther card or 2 since he has some ready to order.  Also looking at a bunch of the options out there so that I don't have to rely on getting disks that are $1 a piece.  I Have one green mono monitor that is in rough shape.  Looking to repair or replace that and get an amber one as well, just need to find some for a good price.  Looking at getting a c64, as well as others for some other ideas.  I also collect old video game systems.  What I was talking about getting cheap was stuff to use for VOIP while using the Apple for data (although it will have limited usefulness, but that isn't the point). 

I love all sorts of old tech.  Would like to learn to use an abacus because of how bad I suck at basic math.
:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Cramulus

BUMP



Bypass the Internet
by  Amara D. Angelica
from Ray Kurzweil's blog

http://www.kurzweilai.net/bypass-the-internet

I'm sick of hearing about how we need to cave in to repressive governments and throttle back Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other information services and accept Web censorship and limits on free expression. Get the hell off my cloud.

"If a full-surveillance world prevents us from speaking, then we need to make another platform where freedom of speech and freedom of thought can be maintained," as futurist Ian Pearson puts it.

"I've written a number of times about jewelery nets and sponge nets. These could do the trick. With very short-range communication directly between tiny devices that each of us wears just like jewellery, a sponge network can be built that provides zillions of paths from A to B, hopping from device to device till it gets there.

No ISPs needed

"Each device is autonomous. Each shares data with its immediate neighbors, and route dynamically according to a range of algorithms available to them. They can route data from A to B so that every packet goes by a different route of need be. Even without any encryption, only A and B can see the full message.

"The capability to make these kinds of devices is almost here. If some government officials don't like it, well, so what? Right now, I don't have a lot of respect for government."

Right on. Anybody out there developing these nets? Let's hear from you!

Bruno

This is the internet I've been waiting for!
Formerly something else...

Kai

Quote from: Cramulus on January 31, 2012, 08:15:45 PM
BUMP



Bypass the Internet
by  Amara D. Angelica
from Ray Kurzweil's blog

http://www.kurzweilai.net/bypass-the-internet

I'm sick of hearing about how we need to cave in to repressive governments and throttle back Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other information services and accept Web censorship and limits on free expression. Get the hell off my cloud.

"If a full-surveillance world prevents us from speaking, then we need to make another platform where freedom of speech and freedom of thought can be maintained," as futurist Ian Pearson puts it.

"I've written a number of times about jewelery nets and sponge nets. These could do the trick. With very short-range communication directly between tiny devices that each of us wears just like jewellery, a sponge network can be built that provides zillions of paths from A to B, hopping from device to device till it gets there.

No ISPs needed

"Each device is autonomous. Each shares data with its immediate neighbors, and route dynamically according to a range of algorithms available to them. They can route data from A to B so that every packet goes by a different route of need be. Even without any encryption, only A and B can see the full message.

"The capability to make these kinds of devices is almost here. If some government officials don't like it, well, so what? Right now, I don't have a lot of respect for government."

Right on. Anybody out there developing these nets? Let's hear from you!

How would this be developed without being commercialized?
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Triple Zero

Oh that's not the biggest problem. I bet most smartphones could do it, today.

However, you can safely dismiss any such Darknet proposal that handwaves the routing problems between ad-hoc networks made of short-range communications devices.

As soon as you try to make a network span a small city in this way, network congestion is going to make your bandwidth go all to shit.

The problem is that the total bandwidth available in the whole network increases linearly with the amount of devices: even if you're surrounded by tens of short-range network neighbours, you can't communicate more data than what the max up/down speed of your device allows.

Of course, if that was only the data you're interested in yourself, everything would be fine (that's how the current hierarchical top-down Internet works, kind of).

But in a "sponge net" (I like that word, though. SpongeNet BitPants!!), you're also expected to be routing all the packets whose A-to-B path you happen to be on.

This causes the amount of bandwidth needed to route all the packets to grow quadratically with the amount of devices: PROBLEM!

The reason why the Internet works is because it has a hierarchical structure, from your local street-hub, to the city's ISP, to even bigger communication networks, and they all have access to increasingly bigger amounts of bandwidth, while on the other hand, routing mostly just happens up and down the network, devices on the same "level" in the hierarchy aren't expected to be (physically) routing data between eachother, instead send it upwards on the chain until it reaches the first common "ancestor" and then send it back down.

The reason why this works in biology, is because either the "data" that travels the path from A to B is useful anywhere along the way, not just at the endpoints, which makes up for the extra bandwidth costs, or communication lines are laid out in a similar hierarchical structure as is the case with our nervous system.

The problem here, is that a network graph of purely locally communicating devices is nearly planar.

You heard about scale-free networks, or small-world networks? Scale-free means it looks similar at every scale, like a fractal. This means, if you got a network and you want it bigger, just slap a scale on top of the largest scale, and you got a new network, with the same throughput properties, except it's bigger.

Well, planar graphs are just not scale-free, and they won't be no matter how clever you are.

There's some serious bandwidth efficiency problems in such a system. You need a hierarchy of higher-bandwidth long-range connections or you'll run into some fundamental limits.

Biology does it too, it uses the myelin-sheathed axons for longer-range higher-bandwidth information transfer. Without it you get MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.

You don't want your Internets to have MS do you? Nooooo you dont!



Additionally, this is just contradictory:
Quote"Each device is autonomous. Each shares data with its immediate neighbors, and route dynamically according to a range of algorithms available to them. They can route data from A to B so that every packet goes by a different route of need be. Even without any encryption, only A and B can see the full message.

IF the packet is not encrypted
AND it travels along a multiple neighbours route A-x-y-z-B
THEN x,y, and z can see the package

HOWEVER there isn't much reason not to use encryption in these situations so that's okay.

It's just odd to say "you don't even need encryption! clap your hands!" (wait sorry, you're a sponge with multiple sclerosis YOU CANT CLAP YOUR HANDS HAHAHAHAHA)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Rumckle

 :lulz:

Thanks Trip, I was thinking that there may be some problems along those lines, but I don't have a lot of knowledge about network construction, so that was very helpful.
It's not trolling, it's just satire.

Igor

So I wandered across this subreddit recently: reddit.com/r/darknet.

They seem to be opting to turn their own computers into nodes for a new internet. It's not as futuristically cool as doing it with jewellery, but probably more immediately practical? They're proposing to use something called cjdns to do this, but I don't know anything about its security or practicality. 
Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.

Cramulus

Thanks for that, trip, very very informative.