On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 14:37 +0200, idefix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Quoting Teddy Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > In short, I think Riseup is great, but I would love it a lot more if the > > server had protection from the legal kind of compromising, possibly > > through Tor as a hidden service. I wouldn't advocate using Riseup > > because they profess to having good admin practices; admins can be > > changed quite transparently for users, and you don't know if the Riseup > > team is really running the show. Gmail can't context-scan encrypted or > > steg'd email. > > Hi, > > at the moment there are discussions going on how to use and implement > tor, so it might happen in the next future... :) > > -idefix > > So anyone who was connected with Riseup will what, go underground, you'll scatter the servers across the world and switch to only existing as a Hidden Service? It doesn't really matter if you can't locate the servers with Tor if the operators are already non-anonymous... But if this could be pulled off, I would definitely support it 100%, and I'd love using it. So maybe keep or-talk posted. :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part