Easy Solution Solution 1
1) Get yourself some Socks 5 Proxies and chain three of them.
Install TOR you can get an average of 3.5MB/sec on downloads.
Re: Easy Solution The sad thing is, TOR would be an upgrade for me if it weren't using my existing connection... Thank's USA and regulatory capture.
Re: Easy Solution You can get a VPN for as cheap as $5 per month. There is absolutely no reason to use TOR for P2P.
Re: Easy Solution hell share the seed box with your friends and its even cheaper
| || Or a 3rd solution, don't use bittorrent.|
Encryption Something like this will work for all of a week, until someone layers encryption onto BT traffic, just like Web sites do it for transmitting sensitive info.
And, if you think about it, all Internet traffic should be encrypted. E-mail is a perfect example. And it needs to be end-to-end. Right now, how do you really know that that e-mail is really from who you think it's from? In truth, you don't. You guess by the content, but that can be faked by someone who wants to take the trouble to fool you badly enough. And how many sensitive e-mails have been sent to the wrong person because of a single erroneous keystroke? Allowing the user to go through a second step of selecting the user's public key would cut down on that possibility.
At any rate, encryption can't happen fast enough. The idea that ISP's are sitting in the middle of a data stream sniffing traffic is just plain scary, no matter why they're doing it.
said by ISurfTooMuch:Don't you mean check the box in their client that enables it? My client has supported it for almost 6 years now.
Something like this will work for all of a week, until someone layers encryption onto BT traffic
| |TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremiumReviews:
said by mackey:Doesn't that apply only to tracker communications?
Don't you mean check the box in their client that enables it? My client has supported it for almost 6 years now.
said by ISurfTooMuch:For that there are various apps from »guardianproject.info/
Let's say that you have human rights activists in an oppressive country who need to talk to each other, perhaps by phone, on a network that is being monitored. You need to do it in such a way that the encryption is secure, but you don't want a central repository with everyone's identity on it, since it'd be a quick way for all of them to end up...well, you know.
It is related to »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaire
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
Safe Harbor and you wouldn't want to screw it up. But the question is really this: AT&T and other ISPs enjoy a "safe harbor" doctrine where they are not responsible for what their customers do online.
I think this depends on their not paying too much attention, and definitely not looking too closely or taking action if they know something.
It might be much better for them to *not know* and to ignore such goings on, lest they lose their "safe harbor".
If someone could prove that they knew or even that they should have known something, and didn't take whatever action that person thinks appropriate, well, they could have liability, much more liability than if they didn't know and were not supposed to know. If they have a patent on it, well, it's hard to argue they didn't know, and shouldn't know.
I am always careful to mind what I know and should know. If I am not supposed to know something, well, I have no liability.
"You didn't tell us about that".
"I didn't know and I don't have the expertise to know".
"It's not my job to know about that".
Sometimes that is by far the best approach.