I haven’t looked in the tor protocol for more than a decade but if routing was done based on traditional networking parameters (ttl distance, ping, etc) pretty sure you would end up all your nodes in your jurisdiction.
If you were using pure random, routing may involve only US (where there are a significant percentage of nodes)
Instead you can see that rarely there are two nodes in the same jurisdiction.
Years ago there were a config file mapping countries to jurisdictions and maybe that has been ditched but still I don’t buy that it is pure random or using traditional routing criteria
Of course not! For this reason you need different providers and jurisdictions for datacenters, operating systems, encryption providers.
It’s the very same principle tor works: sure you can do traffic analysis and be able to “unmask” a tor user… and for this reason tor deliberately sends traffic across 3 different jurisdictions. Is it still possible to force 3 different nodes to cooperate for the unmasking? Sure… but you need 3 jurisdictions to collaborate with that.
Also, fun fact: bank secrecy is still in effect for Swiss residents (regardless of the citizenship) and people resident outside of the US and EU.
Because things are always more nuanced than they seem 🙂
Otherwise there will be tools to gain full access.
Without forgetting the good old rubber hose attack
FWIW I think the only way to keep confidential information is hosted in another country, encrypted, with no credentials (or even the name of the server) cached, all on open sources stacks, with the infrastructure provider different from the operating system provider different from the application provider and encryption provider
Is this convenient? No
Is this accessible to the average user? No
I just think something at certain point went extremely wrong in history. We accepted control in exchange of convenience
This was mentioned at the time of the story of the lake. The Epstein files include also the unverified tips to the FBI.
The strategy here is they are slowly releasing outlandish and unverified accusations first, slowly so that people start debating “is it true? Is it false?”
These are realistically all false (and this is the point) so when the real, verified, documented things will come out
They will sound minor
People that were invested (at the time realistically) in saying these are false, will keep in saying that are false.
The Bunba story, for example, now seems small and fake (while it was mentioned by people that were there not like this BS that was tipped by some idiot anonymously on internet)
In other words these are all attempts to discredit the Epstein files.
And based on a lot of conversations here… it seems that they are successful (and the average Lemmy user has waaay more critical sense than, let’s say, Facebook user)
Unfortunately even the best intentioned and best audited project can be compromised. So that is not a guarantee (sure, much better than closed source but that is a given)
You may be forced by a rubber hose attack (or legal one) to insert vulnerabilities in your code… and you have the traffic… a single point to attack… signal/proton/etc
Is it possible with two different vendors? Sure it is but it is way more complicated
Call me old fashioned but I really think that for real E2EE the vendor of the encryption and the vendor of the infrastructure should be two different entities.
For example PGP/GPG on
<any mail provider>
… great! Proton? Not great
Jabber/XMMP with e2ee encryption great! WhatsApp/Telegram/signal… less so (sure I take signal over the other two every day… but it’s enough to compromise a single entity for accessing the data)
“Such a nice airspace you have here, it would be a shame if something would happen to it”
Also doesn’t say they would invade… still it’s a clear threat.
Putting a correlation on “more fighters jets in your airspace” on them buying more planes that cannot really be used to protect from the US (for software limitations) sounds a lot like a threat.
Do you realise that the wast majority of conscripts is doing office job. When you take the decision option 1 is more “doing office job unless you are unlucky”. And even there, likely the people that commit suicide and/or develop PTSD are not people that rape (they are doing just fine and happy to go for another mission)
Option 2 is only if you have two citizenships (and the other is not Russian like the majority of Israeli people) otherwise you can’t really move
Or afraid… that given how military power is distributed… is not something that unfounded