Depending on country there's probably some regulator office which you can send a complaint to
Natanael
joined 1 year ago
They don't get to make it harder to cancel than to sign up
How easy will it be to explain what you're invoicing them for?
By the hour I presume
Sometimes you need to minimize function calls in a tight loop, but otherwise yeah
Your scenario would specifically require the cops to ask their techs for a detailed report and then deliberately lie about it's conclusions to attack completely random people, and just FYI the last few rounds of this happened when public WiFi was new and the cops kept losing so badly in courts that this doesn't really happen much anymore. You don't even need a great lawyer, just an average one who can find the precedence.
There's no "additional fingerprints" of relevance binding any node in a tunnel to the communications in the tunnel. It uses PFS and multiple layers of encryption (tunnels within tunnels). They need to run a debugger against their node to have any chance to really argue that a specific packet came from a specific node, which also would ironically simultaneously prove that node didn't actually know and was just a blind relay (just like how mailmen aren't liable for content of packages they deliver).
Your argument is literally being used to argue that nobody should have privacy because those who don't break laws don't need it, yet you yourself are arguing for why we still need privacy if we haven't broken laws. The collateral damage when such tools aren't available is so much greater than when privacy tools are available. One of the greatest successes of Signal is how its popularity makes each of its users part of a "haystack" (large anonymity set) and targeting individual users just for using it is infeasible, protecting endless numbers of minorities and other at-risk individuals.
In addition, it's extremely rare that mass surveillance like spying on network traffic leads to prosecutions. It's usually infiltration that works, so you running an I2P node will make zero difference.
1: then they would go after literally anybody running a node
2: their client will not see peers on another IP. It will just see their own I2P node. Any I2P aware software will also not have any IP addresses as peers, only I2P specific internal addresses. They will not even be able to associate an incoming connection to any one node without understanding the I2P network statistics console.
3: by this argument all anonymization tools should be illegal, Signal too, etc, and nobody should help anybody maintain privacy. In the real world there's plenty of reasons why anonymization tools are necessary. And there will be literally zero evidence tying you to a crime. Preexisting legal precedence says an IP address alone is not enough.
Torrents are literally built around file hashes so yes
This is not how the law is applied to packet switching.
If it was store and forward then maybe just maybe law enforcement would care, but anybody smart enough to set up an I2P node to research it and who tried to track where packets from from would first see the packets originate from their own local node at 127.0.0.1, then in the I2P console they could see that packet came in via an active half-tunnel from their own end interfacing with the endpoint node of the other side's half-tunnel, and they would know that node has no idea what it's sending (just like their ISP)
I2P doesn't behave like Tor by default, it's designed around connecting to internal peers within its network so your browser won't treat it as a proxy but default and you have to specifically configure it to route traffic to the I2P network
You can but you'll need either a plugin for your file browser or a custom one
The purpose of that disclaimer is for the lawyer to not expose themselves to malpractice lawsuits from OP, which seems VERY unlikely to be relevant here