Telegram Founder Arrested in France For Not Pushing Censorship

[ClaytonB]

I think you're overestimating how difficult it would be to shut down protocols. Even just making it illegal would eliminate 90-99.9% of the national userbase depending on the harshness of the penalties. The remaining users can be identified through traffic patterns and communications between known hosts/nodes/users. Or even easier, "regulate" end-to-end encryption in such a way that all backbone traffic is unencrypted.

No matter how "decentralized" a protocol is, the internet itself is extremely centralized with everything being routed through known commercial entities that the government effectively controls. International traffic is even easier to control with everything going through a handful of routes.

None of this stuff is even theoretical. It's stuff they have been doing for decades, and they've gotten pretty damn good at it.

Naw, this is all the wrong way to think about it.

The Internet is a giant sewer pipe. Not only is it a sewer-pipe, but it has scanners built in to ensure that nothing but crap flows through it. The point is how do you build a network that can send something other than crap through this giant sewer pipe? Even when the people running the sewer-pipe will resort to rubber-hose methods or Assange you, or Epstein you, etc. if you try to go around their strictly-crap-only policies? The answer is that you build a protocol that will work as long as any crap is flowing through the pipe at all, so that literally the only way to "put a stop" to the unwanted non-crap is to block the entire pipe. That this is possible is part of the reason that Obama built the Internet Kill-Switch! The DoD/etc. know this is possible! If it wasn't possible, they wouldn't need an IKS. But the IKS doesn't really work against Bitcoin because nobody will seriously believe you need to kill the entire Internet just to stop some weirdo Pokemon traders (or whatever) from sending their digital bits back and forth. That's why the FBI/etc. have pivoted to trying to stage big "Bitcoin seizures" like they do their big staged drug/cash busts in order to make cash seem really evil. Only crooks would want to handle physical cash. What are you, a bank-robber or something?! So, they're trying to build a track-record against Bitcoin so they can paint it in that light, and of course, the propaganda media is already gleefully playing along with this, and "cryptocurrency" is almost always shown with a criminal-hacker-looking black-profile-hoodie to indicate that only "Dark Web" crooks would use something like that! None of this would be necessary if Bitcoin could be selectively censored as you mistakenly believe it can be. It cannot be selectively censored that way. Bitcoin is designed so that the sewer-pipe operators either let all crap flow (along with Bitcoin), or none of it flows. Literally all you need to mask a Bitcoin transaction is a non-snitch VPN with an endpoint in a digital-freedom-respecting country. Yes, there are still some out there, no I won't list them here (not going to tip off the glowies that are swarming the forum lately).

At the end of the day, firearms are the only tool that can be relied on to protect free speech. Until we are prepared to use that tool, our freedoms will constantly be further eroded. "Blockchain" will not save us from that fate.

This is just a false-dichotomy. Nobody is going to use a USB stick where you need a Glock. And, vice-versa, using a Glock when you need to trade for necessities might "work" in Mad Max world, but that's certainly not the world I'm working for and I hope you're not, either. You can absolutely have both a Glock and a USB stick with some Bitcoin on it. Absolutely nothing preventing those two from going together. Gold, guns and Bitcoin. These are not competitive entities, they are additive...

[ClaytonB]

Seems more like he was abducted than arrested.

Is there a difference?

[jmdrake]

I think you're overestimating how difficult it would be to shut down protocols. Even just making it illegal would eliminate 90-99.9% of the national userbase depending on the harshness of the penalties. The remaining users can be identified through traffic patterns and communications between known hosts/nodes/users. Or even easier, "regulate" end-to-end encryption in such a way that all backbone traffic is unencrypted.

No matter how "decentralized" a protocol is, the internet itself is extremely centralized with everything being routed through known commercial entities that the government effectively controls. International traffic is even easier to control with everything going through a handful of routes.

None of this stuff is even theoretical. It's stuff they have been doing for decades, and they've gotten pretty damn good at it.

At the end of the day, firearms are the only tool that can be relied on to protect free speech. Until we are prepared to use that tool, our freedoms will constantly be further eroded. "Blockchain" will not save us from that fate.

Have they shut down email yet? Nope. Why not? People share things over email all the time that the government doesn't like? Because the amount of legitimate uses that the government is okay with far outweigh what they don't like. China is one of the most technologically advanced and authoritarian countries in the world. Decades ago the Chinese installed their "great firewall" and tried, among other things, to shut down porn. Not only did they fail to shut down porn, but they found that the technological holes the porn addicts punched through their great firewall was letting political dissidents their their messages through too. So the Chinese essentially gave up.

See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/web-por...reat-firewall/

Moral of the story? Governments aren't all powerful. Part of the reason they have so much power is that people believe they have so much power. It's like Joe Biden talking about the 2nd amendment being irrelevant because the average person doesn't have an F-16. Well the Taliban survived without F-16s thank you very much. Decentralized communications protocols are like AR-15s or AK-47. Or even like 3D printed firearms. Much harder to defeat than one would think.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure the same information that the head of Telegram was arrested for was already shared on decentralized platforms. But there's no billionaire to make an example out of and scare the rest of the population into submission. Has the government shut down the hactivist grup anonymous yet? Rhetorical question.

[TheTexan]

The key is "globally".

If the US really wanted to it could bring bitcoin to a crawl, even globally. Just look at the global war on drugs, which was almost entirely driven by US influence.

But yes, bitcoin will always have some value that the US government can't completely shut down, because of its "global" nature.

With communication protocols such as telegram however, the US does not need to shut it down globally. It only needs to shut it down where it wants it shut down. Which is far more practical than trying to shut it down globally.

[TheTexan]

Have they shut down email yet? Nope. Why not? People share things over email all the time that the government doesn't like? Because the amount of legitimate uses that the government is okay with far outweigh what they don't like.

Correct, and how many legitimate uses do the blockchain/decentralized communication protocols have that the government is okay with? Zero....

China is one of the most technologically advanced and authoritarian countries in the world. Decades ago the Chinese installed their "great firewall" and tried, among other things, to shut down porn. Not only did they fail to shut down porn, but they found that the technological holes the porn addicts punched through their great firewall was letting political dissidents their their messages through too. So the Chinese essentially gave up.

See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/web-por...reat-firewall/

Shutting down access to data is less about restricting access to data and more about using it as a tool of selective enforcement against their dissidents.

They don't need 100% or even 90% success for it to be useful in that regard.

Moral of the story? Governments aren't all powerful. Part of the reason they have so much power is that people believe they have so much power. It's like Joe Biden talking about the 2nd amendment being irrelevant because the average person doesn't have an F-16. Well the Taliban survived without F-16s thank you very much. Decentralized communications protocols are like AR-15s or AK-47. Or even like 3D printed firearms. Much harder to defeat than one would think.

Guns are only useful if people are willing to use them. If people aren't willing to use them, then yes, governments absolutely are all powerful. Which is basically where we're headed.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure the same information that the head of Telegram was arrested for was already shared on decentralized platforms. But there's no billionaire to make an example out of and scare the rest of the population into submission. Has the government shut down the hactivist grup anonymous yet? Rhetorical question.

The exact same laws that are being used against Pavel Durov could be used against anyone using these decentralized platforms. Money laundering, drug trafficking, or any numerous laws could all be applied. The government just has to choose to do it. They wouldn't even need to make new laws. With a centralized service such as telegram, end users are exactly that: end users. With decentralized services however they are active participants.

If they take down Telegram, X, and Rumble, do you really think they are gonna start being shy about taking down people who think they can hide behind "protocols"?

[TheTexan]

Naw, this is all the wrong way to think about it.

The Internet is a giant sewer pipe. Not only is it a sewer-pipe, but it has scanners built in to ensure that nothing but crap flows through it. The point is how do you build a network that can send something other than crap through this giant sewer pipe? Even when the people running the sewer-pipe will resort to rubber-hose methods or Assange you, or Epstein you, etc. if you try to go around their strictly-crap-only policies? The answer is that you build a protocol that will work as long as any crap is flowing through the pipe at all, so that literally the only way to "put a stop" to the unwanted non-crap is to block the entire pipe. That this is possible is part of the reason that Obama built the Internet Kill-Switch! The DoD/etc. know this is possible! If it wasn't possible, they wouldn't need an IKS. But the IKS doesn't really work against Bitcoin because nobody will seriously believe you need to kill the entire Internet just to stop some weirdo Pokemon traders (or whatever) from sending their digital bits back and forth. That's why the FBI/etc. have pivoted to trying to stage big "Bitcoin seizures" like they do their big staged drug/cash busts in order to make cash seem really evil. Only crooks would want to handle physical cash. What are you, a bank-robber or something?! So, they're trying to build a track-record against Bitcoin so they can paint it in that light, and of course, the propaganda media is already gleefully playing along with this, and "cryptocurrency" is almost always shown with a criminal-hacker-looking black-profile-hoodie to indicate that only "Dark Web" crooks would use something like that! None of this would be necessary if Bitcoin could be selectively censored as you mistakenly believe it can be. It cannot be selectively censored that way. Bitcoin is designed so that the sewer-pipe operators either let all crap flow (along with Bitcoin), or none of it flows. Literally all you need to mask a Bitcoin transaction is a non-snitch VPN with an endpoint in a digital-freedom-respecting country. Yes, there are still some out there, no I won't list them here (not going to tip off the glowies that are swarming the forum lately).



This is just a false-dichotomy. Nobody is going to use a USB stick where you need a Glock. And, vice-versa, using a Glock when you need to trade for necessities might "work" in Mad Max world, but that's certainly not the world I'm working for and I hope you're not, either. You can absolutely have both a Glock and a USB stick with some Bitcoin on it. Absolutely nothing preventing those two from going together. Gold, guns and Bitcoin. These are not competitive entities, they are additive...

There is not any protocol in use currently that is in general use that is a big enough crap pipe in your analogy that it can't be shut down. The only thing that comes close to that description is https and the government could -- with significant but achievable effort -- mandate that all certificates go through a centralized government source.

Protocols such as bitcoin, ethereum, or whatever, it doesn't matter if there is "legitimate" traffic flowing on that protocol. If there is sufficient crap on it that the government doesn't like, they can and they will shut it down within the jurisdictions they control. The "legitimate" traffic won't save it.

Even if they do allow the protocol to stay active, there is simply too much metadata available in both the ISP backbones and the services themselves to maintain reliable anonymity. The FBI probably $#@!in loves bitcoin because its so easy for them to trace the connections, and people who use mixers become easy targets because who uses mixers? People with something to hide.

The moment bitcoin or any other protocol becomes strong enough to actually protect its users, in such a way that it threats governments interests, that protocol will not be allowed to exist.

[ClaytonB]

There is not any protocol in use currently that is in general use that is a big enough crap pipe in your analogy that it can't be shut down. The only thing that comes close to that description is https and the government could -- with significant but achievable effort -- mandate that all certificates go through a centralized government source.

Protocols such as bitcoin, ethereum, or whatever, it doesn't matter if there is "legitimate" traffic flowing on that protocol. If there is sufficient crap on it that the government doesn't like, they can and they will shut it down within the jurisdictions they control. The "legitimate" traffic won't save it.

Nonsense. The government allows all kinds of stuff to go on that they don't like. The question is what level of disruption. COVID lockdowns? That wasn't greenlighted merely for a chuckle, that was probably supposed to have killed 95+% of the global population or, failing that, to have instituted 100.0% global NWO tyranny, which it did not succeed in doing. So, what the government "can" and "can't" do isn't really a question of logistics, it's a question of game-theory, in which logistics is just one consideration. The government "can" do a lot of things that it really... can't do. Shutting down corporate VPNs with an IKS event is going to require a massive PSYOP cover-story. Not saying it's past them, in fact, there's lots of credible speculation they have exactly this kind of op in the pipeline. As I have grown older, I have been taken by surprise by the "can", but it's a two-way street. The "can't" extends a lot further into their turf than they can ever admit to themselves. Pretending to be literally-God must be so psychologically complicated, lol.

Even if they do allow the protocol to stay active, there is simply too much metadata available in both the ISP backbones and the services themselves to maintain reliable anonymity.

"Anonymity" is not a binary, it's a sliding scale. Lots of people were "anonymous" until they weren't anymore.

The FBI probably $#@!in loves bitcoin because its so easy for them to trace the connections, and people who use mixers become easy targets because who uses mixers? People with something to hide.

Sure, no doubt, they love that part. One of the largely unspoken aspects of Bitcoin is that its single largest customer-base is probably national intelligence agencies, for fairly obvious reasons. That doesn't mean that they don't also simultaneously want to shut it down. I mean, the DEA/CIA really are trying to shut down the drug-traffickers even if they simultaneously do some of the trafficking themselves (documented! That's not a dart!)

The moment bitcoin or any other protocol becomes strong enough to actually protect its users, in such a way that it threats governments interests, that protocol will not be allowed to exist.

The big idea of Bitcoin is to make sure it's Too Late when that day comes. It practically already is. After a USD hyper-inflationary collapse, with what funny-munny will the Federal government fund its grand Bitcoin takedown? LOL.

[TheTexan]

Nonsense. The government allows all kinds of stuff to go on that they don't like. The question is what level of disruption. COVID lockdowns? That wasn't greenlighted merely for a chuckle, that was probably supposed to have killed 95+% of the global population or, failing that, to have instituted 100.0% global NWO tyranny, which it did not succeed in doing. So, what the government "can" and "can't" do isn't really a question of logistics, it's a question of game-theory, in which logistics is just one consideration. The government "can" do a lot of things that it really... can't do. Shutting down corporate VPNs with an IKS event is going to require a massive PSYOP cover-story. Not saying it's past them, in fact, there's lots of credible speculation they have exactly this kind of op in the pipeline. As I have grown older, I have been taken by surprise by the "can", but it's a two-way street. The "can't" extends a lot further into their turf than they can ever admit to themselves. Pretending to be literally-God must be so psychologically complicated, lol.

The list of things that government "can" do grows with each passing year. COVID lockdowns is an obvious example.

So yes, banning VPN's is not politically possible today, but I can't say with certainty even two weeks from now that it won't fall into the "can" category.

[acptulsa]

[acptulsa]

The exact same laws that are being used against Pavel Durov could be used against anyone using these decentralized platforms. Money laundering, drug trafficking, or any numerous laws could all be applied. The government just has to choose to do it.

[jmdrake]

Correct, and how many legitimate uses do the blockchain/decentralized communication protocols have that the government is okay with? Zero....

First off, you're provably wrong on that. Where did many of the liberals go once Elon Musk took over Twitter? Mastodon. (See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/co...ion_people_to/) So to a certain extent even statists like an alternative if they see a platform they used to love slipping out of their hands.

Second, has anonymous been shut down yet? Nope. Why not? One can argue "The government wants anonymous to operate." Okay. Then that disproves your thesis. The other argument is the government doesn't really like anonymous but they can't stop it. That also disproves your thesis. Here is the sad truth. The left (and I don't know if I consdier anonymous "left" or not) is better at leaderless resistance than the right. Take "antifa" verses "The Proud Boys / Oath Keepers." Who are the leaders of antifa? I couldn't tell you. Who are (were?) the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers? Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhoads. A simple Google search brings that up if you didn't know. I've actually read Enrique Tarrio's indictment. Their "1776 Returns" plan was juvenile. (Enrique's girlfriend came up with it.) Prior to the forumlation of the "1776 Returns" plan, Enrique posted all sorts of inflamatory messages on social media using his real name. It's all in the indictment. Sure he had a first amendment right to do that, but as everyone knows who's ever watched an police drama "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Then he and Joe Biggs and others formed their "conspiracy" and started communicating over encrypted instant messaging. Laughably one of the messages put in the indictment said "Are you sure nobody can read this?" How did the government get the encrypted messages? No mention of someone beating someone with a wrench for the password. But there are several obvious issues. 1) They may have been using a messaging system that was centralized like WhatsApp or even Signal. As brought out in the Tucker Carlson interview of the same Telegram CEO the government pressues companies that get to a certain size to insstall backdoors for them. In fact the FBI at one point put out their own fake encrypted messaging app call ANOM. 2) One or more of their "recruits" could have been an informant. Not hard for the intelligence services to plant a mole in an organization with a visible leader. But how can the FBI infiltrate true leaderless resistance? Who do you try to "join?" 3) Smart phones themselves can be hacked. Tucker feels his Signal messages may have been leaked from a hack reading his "alerts."

The bottom line is that everything that the January 6th "organizers" did was through centralized platforms and much of it was using their real names without even any encryption over things like Facebook. Just why?

Shutting down access to data is less about restricting access to data and more about using it as a tool of selective enforcement against their dissidents.

Who are the dissidents of Anonymous the government would like to shut down? Nobody knows. That's why they can't be shut down. You can't selectively enforce a law against shadow. And before you say "The government only goes after people on the right", know this. Right now the Biden administration is trying to get a 20 year conviction on black socialists for the "crimes" of going to the U.N. and complaining about genocide against black people in the U.S. (whether you agree or that that's happening is irrelevant. They should be able to say whatever they want to whoever they want) and speaking out against the war in Ukraine. (Again, they have the right to do that.) Supposedly what makes this "criminal" is that they went to Russia a couple of times and so Biden is charging them with being Russian agents. (Never mind that it's now admited that Hunter Biden lobbied the State Department on behalf of Burisma while Biden was VP).

Conservatives seem to like being on the news. At least one of the Charlottesville neo Nazi "leaders" sat down for an interview. Even the leader of "Patriot Front" finally gave an interview to Patrick David Bet. Sure there was Q-Anon but then you had the "Q-Anon shaman" busting through a window at the capital like the Kool Aid Man. (Okay. He didn't bust through the window. Somebody else did and then he walked through...but you get the point.) And I get it. Conservatives feel their side isn't covered enough and "If just enough people heard our message on teevee then...." And least the rank and file Patriot Front goofballs wear masks. The January 6th protestors were so stupid that they didn't wear masks the ONE TIME in U.S. history when you not only allowed but ASKED to wear masks in buildings even when the buildings were supposed to have heightened security. (Some smart criminals took advantage of the "please wear a mask" days).

They don't need 100% or even 90% success for it to be useful in that regard.

They've had 0% success taking down anonymous because there's no visible leader to take down. And they can't go after the people who wrote the protocals anonymous uses to communicate without ripping off the illusion that this is someone "rule by the people." It doesn't just magically work the way you seem to think it does. One of the oldest decentralized communications protocals is Freenet.

https://freenet.org/

The whole original point is that if you operated a Freenet node you it was encrypted in such a way that even you the operator couldn't know what was in it. That takes plausible denyability to a whole different level. There are some protocols that tell you on the front in "If you lose your key, we CANNOT get it back for you." So the government goon with the wrench and the laptop and the owner of the laptop can beat the laptop owner within an inch of his life and still be no closer to getting the information on the laptop. Yeah it's a convulted way to think about security. But it only works in conjunction with anonymity and decentralization. If the head of Telegram had truly been able to say "Gee fellows, I would LOVE to comply with your request but I can't because you see I don't actually own any of the data or any of the physical devices the data is on" then they couldn't charge him with anything that would stand up in a court that still pretended to be part of the civilized world. And if they took the mask off that would still victory.

Guns are only useful if people are willing to use them. If people aren't willing to use them, then yes, governments absolutely are all powerful. Which is basically where we're headed.

Replace the word "guns" with the phrase "decentralized communications networks" and you'll start to understand the picture.

The exact same laws that are being used against Pavel Durov could be used against anyone using these decentralized platforms. Money laundering, drug trafficking, or any numerous laws could all be applied.

No they actually couldn't, at least not in the way you think. What Pavel Durov is being accused of doing is allowing these thing to take place on his network when he had the power to stop it. So...take away your own power to "stop it." This is the key. Going back to the Freenet.org example. You can use the main net or set up your own. Same with Mastodon. So the government comes to someone "in charge" of the main node (if that is even a thing and I don't think it is) and say "Don't allow X or your network." Ummm....okay. That doesn't at all stop someone else from downloading Freenet and starting a new node that has X on it. You hear people talking about the "dark web?" In the movies that make it sound really scary and "evil" and "don't go there." Why? Because the government is afraid of the power of people using decentralized platforms. And the goveernment is afraid because it knows it CAN'T shut them down. So..scare everyone with phantoms. You can't point to one prosecution of someone for being the author of a decentralized protocal because it's never happened and it's never happened because there is no legal framework to make that happen in a society that at least wants to pretend to be free.

The government just has to choose to do it. They wouldn't even need to make new laws. With a centralized service such as telegram, end users are exactly that: end users. With decentralized services however they are active participants.

Active participants in what exactly? Active participants in whatever they want to participate in. Let's take the big bad wolf that every decent person wants to stay away from, child p0rn. I would not want anything to do with that whether it was legal or not. Decent people wouldn't participate in it. If someone started a Mastodon network for that decent people wouldn't join. If there was a group on Hive.io for that decent people wouldn't go there. And you can't arrest the people who put the software out there that allowed these nodes to be set up for participating in child p0rn or the people who actively used said software for participating in child p0rn. But if child p0rn was being distributed on Telegram and governments brought it to the CEOs attention and the CEO had the power to take it down and didn't? I am willing to bet that a lot of people even on THIS forum might be okay with that CEO being prosecuted. Back in the USENET days, which was once the most popular protocol on the Internet, there was all kinds of crazy and in some cases vile, disgusting and hateful things in the newsgroups. Not evvery USENET provider gave access to each newsgroup. But even in the legit newsgroups people got away with posting garbage because there was simply no real way to police it. An owner of a particular server could, in theory, put a filter on that one server. What's been developed now is even more decentralized than that. Since everyone has high speed internet, anyone can potentiall host a server.

If they take down Telegram, X, and Rumble, do you really think they are gonna start being shy about taking down people who think they can hide behind "protocols"?

Absolutely. And you're comparing apples to orangutans. Telegram, X and Rumble all have CEOs. Who is the CEO of Mastodon? You keep talking about "start being shy" as if the dark web hasn't been around for decades. (It has been). Nobody has been arrested for writing a dark web protocol. Start being shy? Are you kidding me?

[TheTexan]

Who are the dissidents of Anonymous the government would like to shut down? Nobody knows. That's why they can't be shut down.

If the government did in fact shut down anonymous noone would even know, because anonymous doesn't even have an identity it's just an abstract concept.

There are probably many hackers who self identify as "anonymous" who have been charged with various run-of-the-mill technology crimes but you're not gonna see that on the news because its simply not that interesting usually.

It's a lot like the war on terror. While it's not possible to "defeat terrorism", it is absolutely possible to defeat specific terrorists. The government excels at that $#@!.

Active participants in what exactly? Active participants in whatever they want to participate in.

Legally there is not a very big difference between running a centralized server or a decentralized server. The law doesn't care. More specifically, the government that interprets the law, doesn't care. The only difference is, decentralized services have a lot more servers and people involved in running it, and this technicality in no way shields them from prosecution.

Absolutely. And you're comparing apples to orangutans. Telegram, X and Rumble all have CEOs. Who is the CEO of Mastodon? You keep talking about "start being shy" as if the dark web hasn't been around for decades. (It has been). Nobody has been arrested for writing a dark web protocol. Start being shy? Are you kidding me?

I'm sure Ross Ulbricht takes great solace in knowing that the protocol itself is still "legal".

It's honestly shocking to me how you would write 9 small novels to retort what I believe is general common sense. The common sense being, the government if its properly motivated can make your life a miserable hell and no amount of decentralized technology will change that.

[jmdrake]

There is not any protocol in use currently that is in general use that is a big enough crap pipe in your analogy that it can't be shut down.

Oh really?



You're welcome.

The only thing that comes close to that description is https and the government could -- with significant but achievable effort -- mandate that all certificates go through a centralized government source.

LOL. ^Misinformation. Edward Snowden revealed back in 2013 that https was already cracked by the NSA. The government doesn't care at all about you using https. It just slows down (some) criminals. And again, that's not even what we're talking about. It isn't "Can the government read your private information" that's at issue in this story. Nobody was asking the head of Telegram to "decrypt" the Israeli secrets that had been shared on Telegram. He was being asked to block them or take them down. If the people sharing these documents were doing so on their own Mastodon node or over a Hive.io group there would be nobody for Israel to put pressure on besides the people actively sharing the information.

Protocols such as bitcoin, ethereum, or whatever, it doesn't matter if there is "legitimate" traffic flowing on that protocol. If there is sufficient crap on it that the government doesn't like, they can and they will shut it down within the jurisdictions they control. The "legitimate" traffic won't save it.

Monero still hasn't been shut down and it's largely seen as crypto for criminals. And regardless, we aren't talking about sharing money in this story. We're talking about sharing information. The information being Israeli secrets. You have yet to explain how the government would shut down email if these secrets had merely been shared over an email list. Sure, they could go after the owner of the list but they couldn't go after the protocol itself. Email is an example of a decentralized communications protocol. You don't have to belong to the same email service as the person you want to communicate with. You and the people who you directly communicate with can be held responsible. To a certain extent the people owning the email servers can be held responsible. But email itself can't be shut down and these days anybody can set up their own email server on their home computer.

Even if they do allow the protocol to stay active, there is simply too much metadata available in both the ISP backbones and the services themselves to maintain reliable anonymity. The FBI probably $#@!in loves bitcoin because its so easy for them to trace the connections, and people who use mixers become easy targets because who uses mixers? People with something to hide.

Sure. That's why someone came up with Monero.



But this discussion isn't just about anonymity. It's about anonymity and decentralization. Again, who are the leaders of Anonymous? Nobody knows. Who are the "leaders" of Q-Anon? Well some of them stupidly put themselves out of the world to see. People like to be and have leaders. That's a weakness. Regardless, the CEO of Telegram isn't being charged because his encryption got hacked. He's being charged because he has the power to take down content that Israel doesn't like and he refused to do that. Good for him! But that doesn't mean that the programmers who put together protocols that allow people to do the exact same thing are subject to prosecution. They can't be prosecuted for not obeying a court order that is physically impossible for them to obey. The most they could do is take their protocol down off Github. Ummmm....okay. Do you think the government likes 3D printed guns? That's a great example of what I'm talking about. Why hasn't that been shut down yet? We've gone from this:



To this:



Sure. They eventually busted Cody Wilson (the guy in the first video) for hooking up with a 16 year old he met on a Sugar Daddy website, but that has nothing directly to do with the decentralized distribution of 3D printable gun plans.

The moment bitcoin or any other protocol becomes strong enough to actually protect its users, in such a way that it threats governments interests, that protocol will not be allowed to exist.

3D printed guns exist.

[TheTexan]

Oh really?



You're welcome.

You just gave me a link about how to securely use the dark web. And he's running it on Windows.

Jesus $#@!ing christ.

[TheTexan]

Sure. That's why someone came up with Monero.

Monero is a nice idea with cool tech but even that's not a threat to the system. The US economy operates in US dollars. For the Monero to be useful it has to be converted to US dollars. Even if you personally find a way to pay all your bills directly with Monero, the intermediaries you are paying are gonna have to convert it to USD. And that is a highly regulated process.

If Monero were to ever become a threat, they would just make it illegal. And 99.9999% of Americans would comply. Of those who don't comply, 99% would be caught. (caught as in identified and logged, not necessarily prosecuted cus what's the fun in enforcing the law if its not selective)

[jmdrake]

If the government did in fact shut down anonymous noone would even know, because anonymous doesn't even have an identity it's just an abstract concept.

Except this "concept" keeps releasing videos.

There are probably many hackers who self identify as "anonymous" who have been charged with various run-of-the-mill technology crimes but you're not gonna see that on the news because its simply not that interesting usually.

Of course. So don't commit crimes. The CEO of Telegram is being prosecuted not for anything he did but for not controlling what someone else did on his platform. You're proving my point.

Legally there is not a very big difference between running a centralized server or a decentralized server. The law doesn't care. More specifically, the government that interprets the law, doesn't care. The only difference is, decentralized services have a lot more servers and people involved in running it, and this technicality in no way shields them from prosecution.

Yes there is. The difference is that you an be charged for what you can control.

I'm sure Ross Ulbricht takes great solace in knowing that the protocol itself is still "legal".

The guy who used his own protocal to hire a hitman? That...that's your example? Ummmm okay. Silly example but okay. He wasn't charged for the protocol. He was charged for how HE USED the protocal. I'm sorry, but every time I read his story again I'm shocked that people think that he shouldn't have been prosecuted. I'm okay with people buying and selling drugs as that's a victimless crime, but I draw a hard line on murder for hire. But even using his own protocol to buy and sell drugs would have opened him up to prosecution.

Compare that to the author of the Monero protocal Nicolas von Saberhagen. Unlike Ross Ulbricht, who initially hid his identity, Nicolas von Saberhagen was always open about who he was and what he was doing. He wrote a whitepaper explaining his concept for a decentralized currency that, unlike Bitcoin, is truly anonymous. I'm sure Monero has been used to hire hitmen, buy and sell drugs, prostitutes, illegal gambling operations (the government not getting its cut), whatever. He's never been arrested or prosecuted. Why is that?

It's honestly shocking to me how you would write 9 small novels to retort what I believe is general common sense. The common sense being, the government if its properly motivated can make your life a miserable hell and no amount of decentralized technology will change that.

Have you ever watched the Wizard of Oz? His power came only from the fact that people believed him to be all powerful. Sure the government can make your life miserable if you do things like trying to hire a hitman to go after your enemies (Ross Ulbricht) or go on a Sugar Daddy website and hire essentially a prostitute and don't bother to check her age (Cody Wilson). But that's not what we're talking about with the CEO of Telegram. He's being proseuted because he has the control to take down information that Israel wants taken down and he's refusing to do it. I applaud his brave decision! But he couldn't be charged under the law he's being charged under if all he did was write the protocol. His charge is in France and I'm not familair with French law, but in the U.S. the easiest way to go after someone for something like this is a court order to take the information down and then charging that person with contempt of court. But impossibility is a defense! If a nutty judge ordered you to bring JFK back from the dead, it wouldn't matter because you lack the power to do that. And more importantly, these protocols already exist. People have already published infortion on them that Israel doesn't like. You're talking about these issues as if they things haven't already happened. Centralized platforms are vunerable. Gab got taken off the Apple and Google store. But Gab found work arounds. (See: https://apps.gab.com/). But good luck banning Mastodon because there are multiple Mastodon clients because it's an open source protocol and not just a platform.

[jmdrake]

You just gave me a link about how to securely use the dark web. And he's running it on Windows.

Jesus $#@!ing christ.

LOL. Ummm....no he's not running the Dark Web on Windows. He simply used windows to burn the Linux OS that he access the dark web onto a thumb drive. You plug the thumb drive into your laptop, boot it and then you are NOT using Windows. And the Linux on the thumb drive can be used in such a way that it doesn't store any records of anything you do. So even if the NSA grabs you, threatens you with a wrench for your password to your thumb drive, gets on your thumb drive and searches it...they find....nothing.

[jmdrake]

Monero is a nice idea with cool tech but even that's not a threat to the system. The US economy operates in US dollars. For the Monero to be useful it has to be converted to US dollars. Even if you personally find a way to pay all your bills directly with Monero, the intermediaries you are paying are gonna have to convert it to USD. And that is a highly regulated process.

Decentralized exchanges for cryptocurrency are not regulated.



So you can get paid in Monero, convert your Monero to Bitcoin and convert the Bitcoin to dollars. All that the government would be able to tell is that at some point you used Monero but it wouldn't be able to tell what you used the Monero for.

If Monero were to ever become a threat, they would just make it illegal. And 99.9999% of Americans would comply. Of those who don't comply, 99% would be caught. (caught as in identified and logged, not necessarily prosecuted cus what's the fun in enforcing the law if its not selective)

99.99999% of Americans already don't use Monero because either a) they haven't heard of it or b) somebody on the Internet told them "it's scawy" or c) their just lazy (me).

[TheTexan]

The guy who used his own protocal to hire a hitman? That...that's your example? Ummmm okay. Silly example but okay.

Those allegations were never prosecuted.

He wasn't charged for the protocol. He was charged for how HE USED the protocal. I'm sorry, but every time I read his story again I'm shocked that people think that he shouldn't have been prosecuted. I'm okay with people buying and selling drugs as that's a victimless crime, but I draw a hard line on murder for hire. But even using his own protocol to buy and sell drugs would have opened him up to prosecution.

The fact that you think he was locked up for murder for hire just goes to show how easy it is to get people on board with locking up innocent people. The government just frames it however they want to and they get what they want. The actual facts don't matter.

If the murder for hire thing was real and provable, they would have at least charged him with it.

These are the actual charges:

narcotics trafficking; distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet; narcotics trafficking conspiracy; continuing criminal enterprise; conspiracy to aid and abet computer hacking; conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identity documents; and money laundering conspiracy.

To be clear, these are not generally things he was doing directly. He provided the service that allowed these things to occur. Whether or not he was charged "for the protocol" can be left for a semantic debate with someone else because in the real world there is not much difference.

[TheTexan]

Decentralized exchanges for cryptocurrency are not regulated.



So you can get paid in Monero, convert your Monero to Bitcoin and convert the Bitcoin to dollars. All that the government would be able to tell is that at some point you used Monero but it wouldn't be able to tell what you used the Monero for.

If you want to get those dollars into a bank (e.g., be able to spend it in the general non-crypto economy), then yes, it absolutely is regulated.

99.99999% of Americans already don't use Monero because either a) they haven't heard of it or b) somebody on the Internet told them "it's scawy" or c) their just lazy (me).

That pretty much is a very strong argument of why security technologies wouldn't ever work against a state adversary. If it's not easy to use people aren't gonna use it. And security -- the kind of security the NSA can't break -- is definitely not easy.

[ClaytonB]

... I can't say with certainty ...

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" ... seriously, though, I will grant that you're technically right but I have more hope overall in this regard. There's no way we "just happened" to escape annihilation by the chinavirus, and the vaxx bioweapon, or Trump "just happened" to turn his head at exactly the right moment. Those are events that break probabilistic analysis. Someone is interfering, and whoever is doing this, is doing it for reasons that appear to be truly good. I can hope that God has sent angels to intervene...

[jmdrake]

If you want to get those dollars into a bank (e.g., be able to spend it in the general non-crypto economy), then yes, it absolutely is regulated.

Right. But all the government knows from that transaction is that you had Monero that you got from somewhere, you converted it to Bitcoin and now you've converted the Bitcoin to dollars. They can't tell how you got the Monero in the first place.

That pretty much is a very strong argument of why security technologies wouldn't ever work against a state adversary. If it's not easy to use people aren't gonna use it. And security -- the kind of security the NSA can't break -- is definitely not easy.

I say lazy, but really I should have said "Not sufficiently motivated." Take YouTube for example. I was ticked when they cancalled James Corbett. (Basically he's like Alex Jones only he sticks with actual facts he can give sources for, never goes from his "gut" and has none of the drama.) Sure he's on Rumble and https://odysee.com/. I'm thankfull this site added the ability to post from those other platforms. (Rumble is centralized but Odysee is decentralized). So why do I still mostly post from YouTube? Because I'm on YouTube all of the time! YouTube is on my phone by default. Some of my favorite content (martial arts, tech stuff ect), is mostly on YouTube. And I still find enough of the anti establishment political stuff on YouTube to keep me intersted. (Jimmy Dore recently interviewed James Corbett on....YouTube). So yeah, I'll admit it. I'm part of the problem. Humans are creatures of habit and I'm human. But the first step to fixing a problem is admitting it's a problem.

[TheTexan]

Right. But all the government knows from that transaction is that you had Monero that you got from somewhere, you converted it to Bitcoin and now you've converted the Bitcoin to dollars. They can't tell how you got the Monero in the first place.

That's where that $5 wrench comes into play. They can just freeze your dollars until you tell them what they want to know.

[jmdrake]

Those allegations were never prosecuted.

Right. Because the prosecutors never could identify the targets of the hit. But evidence for the murder for hire scheme was put before a jury.

The fact that you think he was locked up for murder for hire just goes to show how easy it is to get people on board with locking up innocent people. The government just frames it however they want to and they get what they want. The actual facts don't matter.

The facts are that he had a conversation about hiring a hit man to kill people. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder but later crimnally liable for wrongful death. I don't think OJ was innocent. Bill Cosby was found guilty of rape but later the conviction was thrown out because the prosecution had violated an immunity deal. I'm not convinced Bill Cosby was innocent. (Maybe he was. It's possible to give drugs to women for sex without that meaning you drugged them to have sex with them without their consent).

If the murder for hire thing was real and provable, they would have at least charged him with it.

Sometimes people can get away with something that's real but not provable based on the circumstances. In this ase I don't think "DreadPirateRoberts" was trying to take a hit out on fictional people. But if you don't know who the actual victims are then how do you prove the crime?

These are the actual charges:

narcotics trafficking; distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet; narcotics trafficking conspiracy; continuing criminal enterprise; conspiracy to aid and abet computer hacking; conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identity documents; and money laundering conspiracy.

Okay.

To be clear, these are not generally things he was doing directly. He provided the service that allowed these things to occur. Whether or not he was charged "for the protocol" can be left for a semantic debate with someone else because in the real world there is not much difference.

Oh really? Transcript of what was presented at trial.

Dread Pirate Roberts 3/26/2013 18:27: Sorry for the delayed response and thank you for getting in touch. We've had some technical difficulties the past 24 hours I've had to deal with. Just to be clear, I do not owe him any money, but he has told me his situation and wants my help. I'm not entirely sure what the best action to take is, but I wanted to be in communication with you to see if we can come to a conclusion that works for everyone.
friendlychemist aside, we should talk about how we can do business. Obviously you have access to illicit substances in quantity, and are having issues with bad distributors. If you don't already sell here on Silk Road, I'd like you to consider becoming a vendor. Many people here purchase in bulk as well as retail quantities. Being a vendor, you'll have the protection that dealing anonymously in bitcoin provides, and you'll have protection against people like friendlychemist ripping you off because all transactions are conducted through my escrow. I encourage you to read the wiki and forum ... and consider becoming a vendor here.
So, if there is anything I can do as the admin here to help you get involved in Silk Road, or anything I can do to help with your situation with friendlychemist, please just let me know.
-DPR

So...you don't see the difference between just created a protocal and putting it out there for other people to use and asking a drug dealer to be a "vendor" on your online market? And again. I get it. Drugs shouldn't be criminalized. But they are. If you recruit drug dealers to come to your platform to sell drugs and you get caught doing that you'll be prosecuted. And it sounds like he made money of the transaction.

[jmdrake]

That's where that $5 wrench comes into play. They can just freeze your dollars until you tell them what they want to know.

If they have a reason to target you. So....don't give them a reason to target you. But okay. You're concerned about the hypothetical world where Monero itself is criminalized and they start going after people just for having Monero. Sure. That's not the current world we live in though.

[TheTexan]

The facts are that he had a conversation about hiring a hit man to kill people.

Allegedly.

But if you don't know who the actual victims are then how do you prove the crime?

The law does not require a named victim. If everything you said is true, that they have sufficient evidence to determine that he hired a hitman for murder, that is plenty to convict. The murder for hire laws do not require a named victim, only that a person intended to hire a hitman to commit an illegal murder. Does the name of the person make the murder any more or less legal?

The simple fact of the matter is, they didn't have the evidence to prove Ross participated in those conversations. It could have just as easily been either of the 2 convicted corrupt FBI agents who had full access to the DPR account. The conversations could have been a FBI sting operation against the hitman or a complete fabrication.

Oh really? Transcript of what was presented at trial.

Dread Pirate Roberts 3/26/2013 18:27: Sorry for the delayed response and thank you for getting in touch. We've had some technical difficulties the past 24 hours I've had to deal with. Just to be clear, I do not owe him any money, but he has told me his situation and wants my help. I'm not entirely sure what the best action to take is, but I wanted to be in communication with you to see if we can come to a conclusion that works for everyone.
friendlychemist aside, we should talk about how we can do business. Obviously you have access to illicit substances in quantity, and are having issues with bad distributors. If you don't already sell here on Silk Road, I'd like you to consider becoming a vendor. Many people here purchase in bulk as well as retail quantities. Being a vendor, you'll have the protection that dealing anonymously in bitcoin provides, and you'll have protection against people like friendlychemist ripping you off because all transactions are conducted through my escrow. I encourage you to read the wiki and forum ... and consider becoming a vendor here.
So, if there is anything I can do as the admin here to help you get involved in Silk Road, or anything I can do to help with your situation with friendlychemist, please just let me know.
-DPR

So...you don't see the difference between just created a protocal and putting it out there for other people to use and asking a drug dealer to be a "vendor" on your online market?

Considering that the protocol was designed specifically for drug dealing and other black market activities, no, there's not really any meaningful difference.

In a similar manner, Telegram was designed specifically to allow for people to use encryption to hide potentially illegal communications from their local governments. That is the purpose of the software, the purpose of the protocol.

The protocol and how it is used is extremely tightly coupled. Whether people are prosecuted "for the protocol" or "for how its used" is not a valuable use of time debating.

[jmdrake]

Allegedly.

Okay. Fine. Let's go with that. Saying someone allegedly used his platform to recruit people to sell drugs and that person allegedly hired a hitman to kill people is 180 degrees from saying this person built a protocal, put it out in the wild for people to use, and some people using the protocal did some bad things with it. I went back and looked up Ross Ulritch's defense. It consisted of admitting that at one point he ran the platform, again not just writing the protocal but running the platform, but claimed all the bad stuff was done by a successor that was framing him even though some of the incriminating chat logs were on Ulritch's laptop. (Hmmm....kind of sounds like Hunter Biden's laptop). The other argument was that Bitcoin isn't real money so it can't be used for money laundering. (That didn't fly for obvious reasons as people were using it to buy and sell drugs). Then there was the "landlord" defense alledging that landlords can't be help responsible for the things their tenants do. I don't think that defense would work if a landlord actively recruited drug dealers and then offered to do whatever the could to help facilitate their drug business. The defense also tried to use the Communication Decency Act as a defense. But that didn't work for Backpage.com.

The law does not require a named victim. If everything you said is true, that they have sufficient evidence to determine that he hired a hitman for murder, that is plenty to convict. The murder for hire laws do not require a named victim, only that a person intended to hire a hitman to commit an illegal murder. Does the name of the person make the murder any more or less legal?

If I hire a hitman to kill Elmer Fudd, and I'm really just talking about the cartoon character, not a real person, is that a crime? Now, at the end of the day, I can't say for sure why they didn't try to charge him with solicitation for murder. But they did charge him and get a conviction on the other crimes so maybe they could have gotten a conviction on the (alleged) murder for higher scheme. Okay. All you've shown is prosecutorial cold feet on something they could have gotten a conviction on.

Anyhow, here's a deep dive into the "alleged" solicitation for murder conversation that somehow found it's way on Robert's laptop. (He should have been using that Linxu TOR bootable drive in the video I gave you that was not running on windows. )

Dread Pirate Roberts 3/29/2013 22:55: Hi again R&W,
I hate to come to you with a problem when we are just starting to get to know one another, but Blake (FriendlyChemist) is causing me problems. Are you still looking for him or now that you've found Xin have you given up? I would like to put a bounty on his head if it's not too much trouble for you. What would be an adequate amount to motivate you to find him?

Necessities like this do happen from time to time for a person in my position. I have others I can turn to, but it is always good to have options and you are close to the case right now. Hopefully this is something you are open to and can be another aspect of our business relationship.
Regards,
DPR

Redandwhite 3/30/2013 00:42: What is the problem? We usually tend to stay away from hits as they are bad for business and bring a lot of heat. Is it a problem that can be resolved or does it need to be dealt with sternly?

As of right now, we don't care about him because we retrieved more from Xin than what he took from us, and he also paid for it with his life. Debt paid in our books. As far as rates go, we don't have a flat rate for things like that. It's on a case by case basis. Usually we pay our hitters a percentage of what the person owes +/- how much they can retrieve. If it's strictly a hit because they don't want the person around anymore it's also different. Does he owe you money or do you just not want him around anymore? I can send a couple of my guys to do recon to find out exactly where he is right now in the meantime until I hear back from you.

Dread Pirate Roberts 3/30/2013 1:55: If you can find his location, that may be enough for me to scare him off. He is trying to blackmail me. Just let me know what you need to make this worth your while.

And here's the crime of solicitation.

(a)Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

(b)It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

(c)It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution.

So maybe the prosecutors felt that moving from "Can you kill the guy" to "Well just scare him off" was enough of a defense under the "voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent" clause. Regardless, there is no dispute that this information was in the chat logs on Ulritch's computer. Maybe it's like the tranny porn found on Alex Jones' phone?

The simple fact of the matter is, they didn't have the evidence to prove Ross participated in those conversations. It could have just as easily been either of the 2 convicted corrupt FBI agents who had full access to the DPR account. The conversations could have been a FBI sting operation against the hitman or a complete fabrication.

The evidence was admitted by Ulritch's defense attorney to be on his computer. Other evidence from the same chat logs were used to convict him of the crimes he as convicted of. And all of this evidence was admitted to court. But okay. Let's go with the sting operation argument. If that's the case he could have raised the defense of entrapment provided that the hitman goaded him into contracting a hit. "I know you have this problem with a blackmailer. I can help you with that." Sounds like the opposite happened but okay. But it's possible that Ulritch decided to "voluntarily withdraw" the hit offer after the hitman said it wasn't a good idea and that might be a good enough defense under the statute for the solicitation crime while still allowing the evidence to be admitted to show state of mind for other crimes that he actually was charged and convicte4d of.

Considering that the protocol was designed specifically for drug dealing and other black market activities, no, there's not really any meaningful difference.

Silkroad wasn't just a "protocol" it was also a platform and the platform at one time was run but Ulritch. He didn't just write a whitepaper on what could be done and upload code to github for anybody to download. He was convicted based on incriminating chat logs that somehow found his way on his laptop about a platform his lawyer admitted in court that he initially ran.

In a similar manner, Telegram was designed specifically to allow for people to use encryption to hide potentially illegal communications from their local governments. That is the purpose of the software, the purpose of the protocol.

You realize that Telegram is a platform right? Yes the people who wrote the protocol behind Telegram run Telegram but they also run the platform. You're basically back to what I've been saying from the beginning. Once you create a platform it's possible for a government to hold you responsible for the platform not the protocol. I know you complained about how long my writing style is but I try to explain what I'm saying so it can be understood and apparently I'm failing at that with some people. Not sure how to fix that. But I'll reiterate this one more time. A centralized platform that has a CEO and that has the ability to block content on the platform can find itself in hot water by unscrupulous governments. This is from Telegram's mission statement.

Q: Wait! 0_o Do you process take-down requests from third parties?
Our mission is to provide a secure means of communication that works everywhere on the planet. To do this in the places where it is most needed (and to continue distributing Telegram through the App Store and Google Play), we have to process legitimate requests to take down illegal public content (e.g., sticker sets, bots, and channels) within the app. For example, we can take down sticker sets that violate intellectual property rights or porn bots.

User-uploaded stickers sets, channels, and bots by third-party developers are not part of the core Telegram UI. Whenever we receive a complaint at abuse@telegram.org or dmca@telegram.org regarding the legality of public content, we perform the necessary legal checks and take it down when deemed appropriate.

Please note that this does not apply to local restrictions on freedom of speech. For example, if criticizing the government is illegal in some country, Telegram won't be a part of such politically motivated censorship. This goes against our founders' principles. While we do block terrorist (e.g. ISIS-related) bots and channels, we will not block anybody who peacefully expresses alternative opinions.

So. Telegram, by it's own admission, has the willingness and ability to take down terrorist content. That means they have the ability, but not the willingness, to take down Israeli state secrets. In a truly decentralized system nobody has the ability to take down content! That means if ISIS really wants to put up a video of someone being beheaded and burned to death, on a truly decenralized system nobody can do anything about that.

The protocol and how it is used is extremely tightly coupled. Whether people are prosecuted "for the protocol" or "for how its used" is not a valuable use of time debating.

If you simply don't want to understand the difference, okay. It's not worth debating. But at least you learned that Network Chuck wasn't using Windows to access the dark web. That's worth something at least.

[TheTexan]

But at least you learned that Network Chuck wasn't using Windows to access the dark web.

He was using Windows to access the dark web for the entire first half of the video.

The part about using the thumb drive was an optional step he added at the end, for people who want added security. LOL

[jmdrake]

He was using Windows to access the dark web for the entire first half of the video.

The part about using the thumb drive was an optional step he added at the end, for people who want added security. LOL

He went to the Dark Web version of the New York Times. That's like the character from The Breakfast Club who was asked "Why do you need a fake ID?" and instead of saying "To buy booze" or "To get in a club" it was for....voting. I can't tell if when you're being serious or sarcastic but there's nothing dangerous about going on the Dark Web just to look at websites that you can see on the regular web.

[TheTexan]

He went to the Dark Web version of the New York Times. That's like the character from The Breakfast Club who was asked "Why do you need a fake ID?" and instead of saying "To buy booze" or "To get in a club" it was for....voting. I can't tell if when you're being serious or sarcastic but there's nothing dangerous about going on the Dark Web just to look at websites that you can see on the regular web.

The point is 1) You were wrong, and 2) The guy is a joke who was shilling for his own product and noone should take security advice from that guy