Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by Dermot7, Feb 1, 2012.
There still has to be some contact with land, and whatever land that is, has laws and lawmakers, who are quite capable of a wink and a nod to allies to screw Mr. Assange. And, even though being in international waters does *not* make you immune, I'm sure there are still some crafty little maritime laws that could be used against them.
I daresay you're correct on most of what you've said, but wouldn't you say they've thought of all that?
edit: Actually, on second thoughts, if it were me, that Sealand rig is not somewhere I'd be thinking of locating anything...certainly not valuable servers I'm inclined to think that this "exclusive" story is all pure speculation, until we know more.
I think he should just design his system to be One World Government proof instead of dreaming up exotic locations to host from. Once the One World Government is here will they begin hosting from the moon?
We need hosting services that are everywhere, but nowhere in particular. Storage, processing and Internet connectivity should all be distributed. The basis might be some sort of opt-out botnet, or maybe closer to SETI@home and other BOINC projects. But deniability would be important. It would use something like Tahoe-LAFS for storage.
Oh I'm 100% certain they've well thought out the risks. The best thing they could do is stick the required land-based equipment in a politically unstable country, one that doesn't have the best ties to risky nations like the U.S. The problem with that is, it comes with its own dangers. Is your building going to be subject to shelling daily? Is the unstable government (and they all pretty much are) against free-flowing information and freedom?
There's literally no perfect scenario for them, and their best options are also their riskiest. As for Sealand, I'm not sure its current "Prince" would want to get involved with the kind of heat Assange brings. What it all boils down to is this, the governments that Assange is trying to avoid, are governments that have proven themselves to be crafty and forceful enough to work around any laws that prove pesky and prevent them from doing what they want.
When nothing else works, make up a new law.
Yep...that's about the size of it. There really is no hiding place for those sought-after with priority...we've seen that.
If it were me, I think I'd try to "play" that I'd given up releasing data etc, and permit it to "leak" via another outlet.
For a guy like him and such a watched organization, it wouldn't work. It would be extraordinarily lucky for them if they didn't already have "eyes on the inside". When you've got that big of a bulls eye on your back, there's not much left to do but either give in or, as stated earlier, run to some God forsaken worn down country with barely any organization or laws and hope that country doesn't change or throw you in their own jail/kill you. Just like Anonymous is doing, the guy and his group barked up too many wrong trees, and now life is the pits.
An interesting move of questionable effectiveness.
I think I decentralized network is needed. Something like P2P but for serving webpages. For example: I connect to wikileaks website but there servers have been seized so instead of sending my to a 404 error page it would send me to someone else hosting the pages and so on and so on. They should also set up some tor hidden servers. It would keep governments hunting for a while as they wouldn't know who was connecting or where they were going to.
Tor hidden services have a potentially useful property. There can be multiple copies of a particular hidden service, all with the same hostname and key pair. Clients will find whichever one has most recently published its hidden service descriptor.
Separate names with a comma.