Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #481189

Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message 
news:8fe31d7a193838799481e284dfff0fce@dizum.com...
> In article <pumgvh$vne$1@news.mixmin.net>
> "Nomen Nescio" <noreply@mixnym.net> wrote:
>>
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:50:59 +0100 (CET)
>> > Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I love the Ricochet architecture.
>> >
>> >> It cannot fail open as there is no other option to run it other
>> >> than though Tor.
>> >
>> >> It is probably as close as anything else to metadata resistant
>> >> communication. And.. It is serverless. No servers to compromise
>> >> whatsoever. I like that.
>> >
>> >> Downside?
>> >
>> >> It's asynchronous ie; Live Chat. No offline operation.
>> >
>> > I'd been hoping someone would chime in with a plug for RetroShare.
>> > No one has, so I guess I have to.  RS runs with or without TOR and
>> > purports to do asynchonous messaging.
>> >
>> > o
>> > https://github.com/RetroShare/documentation/wiki/What-is-RetroShare%3F
>> >
>> > o http://retroshare.net/
>> >
>> > o https://github.com/RetroShare/RetroShare/
>> >
>> > The SourceForge links are deprecated.
>> >
>>
>>   "Retroshare securely stores messages on friends' nodes"
>>
>>   This is the problem I have with RetroShare.  I don't think you can
>> determine or limit how much is being stored on you computer.  In
>> Australia, the Australia Federal Police (should be named the Australia
>> Federal Gestapo) has kicked in the doors of homes in the middle of the
>> night to confiscate computers that hold such data.  A past remailer
>> called Kulin had so much trouble with this that he had to shut down.
>>
>>   Other than that, I am sure that RetroShare is an excellent system.
>
> There are no individual protections or expectations of privacy in 
> Australia.

That’s bullshit with medical records alone.
 

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-12-11 03:46 +0100
  Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:19 +1100
    Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:03 +1100
      Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:18 +1100
        Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-11 07:54 -0600
        Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2018-12-11 14:56 +0100
          Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 07:04 +1100
            Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-12 07:23 -0600
      Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-12-11 11:53 +0100
    Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-12-11 10:12 +0100
  Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage "Nomen Nescio" <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-12-11 16:30 -0600
    Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage % <%> - 2018-12-11 16:28 -0700
    Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2018-12-12 11:09 +1100
      Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage "Nomen Nescio" <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-12-12 08:39 -0600
        Re: Richochet vs. BitMessage Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 06:52 +1100

csiph-web