Is there any way you can use P2P anonymously

[thecrip]

Can you use an Internet anonymizer program to hide your ISP from the RIAA or anyone else? I'm fairly new to P2P am curious. It seems like there are a few anonymizer out there. Any suggestions? Thanks

[MikeHunt]

yes ..there are ways to be annonymous...but....expect slow downloads in the process.
One P2P program to look at is Filetopia
www.filetopia.org

They use encryption and a 'bouncer' proxy to protect your transfer privacy and IP address.
I think Freenet is another similar program to check out as well.

[Miniver]

The best program for anonymity currently is Mute. Unfortunately it is currently in it's infancy and therefore doesn't have the resources which the others do. If you just want music it will work fine but if you want large dld's I wouldn't recommend it...YET...
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

[c411Z]

i disagree with filetopia being called anonymous your IP can be pulled in netstat when in filetopia.
maybe if you use a bouncer ,i've never seen one to use
not to mention FT is buggy the servers go down allot and it takes tons of ram

MUTE , Freenet, and WASTE (configured in a certain way), are the only clients i can say are anonymous

[MikeHunt]

yes c411z ...you have to use a 'bouncer' with Filetopia to have your IP protected.
It does slow down your downloads..but it does protect as advertised.
Traffic encryption occurs even without a bouncer.
Read their site info for more details.
As for the servers being buggy ...never had a problem that way. I leave it on for days at a time.
Mute sounds interesting ..Im going to check their site out.

[Slycktom]

The short answer to your question is NO.

The long answer is that you can make yourself less likely a target with the above techniques. If the RIAA or MPAA really wants to find out your identity, they can. No 'cloaking' or 'anonymitiy' feature is 100% fool proof.

The thing to do is share smarter. If the RIAA can find an easier target, they will nail a Kazaa user sharing 1000 songs with their shared directory exposed. They will avoid subpoening proxy providers or ISPs if they can score an easy hit off FastTrack...

[Miniver]

actually you are WRONG slycktom! With mute you only know the ips of the five people (less or more by choice)connected to you, you don't know the ip of the person you are getting the file from and he doesn't know your ip. Files and searches are routed through multiple hosts. Read up on it! There is no way that they could prove that any file came from you or was requested by you.

[freeloaders]

You can also just share on networks that aren't attacked as much such as edonkey, soulseek, winmx, etc.



wrong agian just because they aern't attack doesn't mean they are safe. the only 100% safe filesharing is Foldershare. cuz your only sharing it with your buddies, or family member. now the only thing that will get you caught using foldeshare is if you share your files with some stranger you dont know.

[crackerjacker]

actually you are WRONG slycktom! With mute you only know the ips of the five people (less or more by choice)connected to you, you don't know the ip of the person you are getting the file from and he doesn't know your ip. Files and searches are routed through multiple hosts. Read up on it! There is no way that they could prove that any file came from you or was requested by you. It's kind of like the cell system for delivering messages privately. I.E. Tom knows Jane and Tom knows Harry but Harry and Jane don't know each other but each know someone else besides Tom who are different people.


Mute is not safe. hmm
nuff said

[crackerjacker]

if u wanna think that mute is safe dream on.
because if someone who is sharing files on mute and the are working for riaa, then can just subpena all those ip addresses that show up in netstat.

hmm all they have to say is they have reasonable doubt or whatever take some screenshots and thats all,

mute is not safe
keeping thinkin it is when its not.
hmm

[Miniver]

Mute is not safe. hmm
nuff said

How is mute not safe?

[crackerjacker]

read what i said up above.
just for the record, just because people think mute is safe it is not.

when someone who works for the riaa downloads from someone and types netstat ip addresses will show up.

and if u look in your firewall u will see ip addresses and the amount of data is being sent, so those ip addresses will correspond to the file wall and u will see which ip addreses is sending what to a certain degree.

and then there is the packets that can be captured.
so yeah.
mute is a good step towards annoymity but just for the record and from someone i know who tested it, they surely have come to the conclusion that its not safe.

but from where i stand on it, its not safe.
if u wanna think it is then go head and think it.

this is just my opinion.
though
there is no right or wrong answer, but dont be fooled.
:)

[crackerjacker]

and to address the issue this program just probably hashes the ip addresses big deal, this program is not safe.
wish it was., but the more u think about it its not safe

hmm

[Slycktom]

I did read up on it, Miniver..

I admit it does a great job, at least in theory, of hiding your IP, but just because the home website promotes it as such is simply not enough for me to trust it 100%.

Is it safer than FastTrack? Without a doubt. Will it absolutely guarentee that I will never get sued by the RIAA? Absolutely not...

[crackerjacker]

and just because it claims it can do proxy of ip addresses this doesnt not mean they wont get someones ip address.
its merely acting as a node for someone else, the riaa dont give a fuck.
point is mute is not anoymous.

[crackerjacker]

and there is no such thing as a safe p2p program,.

[Miniver]

yes but as i said above there is no way that they could prove that it was you who sent a particular file or search. It is only being routed through you. By your logic isp's could be sued for file sharing. For you are simply providing a service which is perfectly capable of being used legally. Look to the courts decisions recently. Be more informed before you besmirch a good program's name.

[Slycktom]

yes but as i said above there is no way that they could prove that it was you who sent a particular file or search

When was the last time the RIAA proved a case against a file-trader? Virtually all people settle before it goest to court. A potential $500,000 or multi-million dollar fine is enough to scare anyone into a settlement...

[Miniver]

if u wanna think that mute is safe dream on.
because if someone who is sharing files on mute and the are working for riaa, then can just subpena all those ip addresses that show up in netstat.

hmm all they have to say is they have reasonable doubt or whatever take some screenshots and thats all,

mute is not safe
keeping thinkin it is when its not.
hmm

Resonable doubt is in the favor of the defendant, not the riaa.

[Caitlyn Marble]

p2p is as anonymous as you make it.

are you be sharing 1000 top forty mainstream songs and the latest blockbuster movies? you're asking for it, no matter what program you use.

[crackerjacker]

Resonable doubt is in the favor of the defendant, not the riaa.
'
reasonable doubt wont matter when those peeps are sued.
sure they can fight it in court, which i would do but the fact remains look where reasonable doubt got with some people who were put to death for something they didnt do.

the way i see it if u wanna say that mute is anoymous go head, the truth is that it is not.

and one more thing, just by what u said, that means that its possible that mute is not anoymous, because u are saying that reassonable doubt is in favor of the defendent.

hmm so i can presume that mute is not totally anoymous which i know for a fact it isnt anoymous.
nuff said

[crackerjacker]

yes but as i said above there is no way that they could prove that it was you who sent a particular file or search. It is only being routed through you. By your logic isp's could be sued for file sharing. For you are simply providing a service which is perfectly capable of being used legally. Look to the courts decisions recently. Be more informed before you besmirch a good program's name.


look i am giving my opinion and i have used many p2p programs for along time and i will be straight up its not anoymous.
i can easily use a dial up account and get anyones ip addresses that i download off.
thats the truth. i am glad people wanna make p2p anoymous but lets get real why say its anoymous when its not.
can u please prove me wrong?
and i am not trying to dis mute i am just expressing myself and i feel the need to get answers. if i am wrong ok, but as of now i am not wrong.

but hey if u wanna prove otherwise its cool. i am willing to be presented with anything you say, because u might have more knowledge them me. point is this is just an opinion.

[Slycktom]

besmirch a good program's name

No one is trying to 'besmirch' or otherwise bad-mouth mute. My hat is off to the developer for his contribution. All that is being said is that you cannot be 100% safe on any P2P network, including Mute. Its best to be cautious and share smarter rather than believeing you are invulnerable...

[crackerjacker]

No one is trying to 'besmirch' or otherwise bad-mouth mute. My hat is off to the developer for his contribution. All that is being said is that you cannot be 100% safe on any P2P network, including Mute. Its best to be cautious and share smarter rather than believeing you are invulnerable...

hmm exactly
truth is truth. share smart i say and also honestly good work to the developers who put time into this program.

[Miniver]

When was the last time the RIAA proved a case against a file-trader? Virtually all people settle before it goest to court. A potential $500,000 or multi-million dollar fine is enough to scare anyone into a settlement...

Who do you think they're going to go after first? Any one of the many p2p's out there that directly connect uploader and downloader thereby guaranteeing guilt or a system where you can't prove who is uploading or downloading and is only a system of routers. Or think of it this way, if I had 100 proxy servers b4 my info got to the internet who is going to go to the hassle to trace me back through all those proxies when they can get someone by directly connecting to them. How about 1000 proxies, 10,000 proxies, 1,000,000 proxies. When you send a message on the mute network your ip get's sent to the next person and is then deleted, their ip is sent to the next person with your search and is then deleted. Das ist not perfect? not yet... but it is better than any other protection out there! I dare you to prove me wrong!

edit: Sorry, too much caffeine!

[Ezza6745]

EarthStation 5! mmm ok well maybe not lol

[crackerjacker]

Who do you think they're going to go after first? Any one of the many p2p's out there that directly connect uploader and downloader thereby guaranteeing guilt or a system where you can't prove who is uploading or downloading and is only a system of routers. Or think of it this way, if I had 100 proxy servers b4 my info got to the internet who is going to go to the hassle to trace me back through all those proxies when they can get someone by directly connecting to them. How about 1000 proxies, 10,000 proxies, 1,000,000 proxies. When you send a message on the mute network your ip get's sent to the next person and is then deleted, their ip is sent to the next person with your search and is then deleted. Das ist not perfect? not yet... but it is better than any other protection out there! I dare you to prove me wrong!

edit: Sorry, too much caffeine!

heh caffeine is ok in moderation *cough*
hmm its not whether or not the ip addresses are getting rerouted, the issue will stand in a court of law. heres how it works.
riaa just has to prove that they obtained a copyright work from somoene. whoever send it will be liable simple as that.

next thing the person can go to court and say they didnt do it, they got wrong person, but they will get someones ip address and blame that person.

remember riaa dont care. that is the difference.
it dont matter if u wanna say mute is safe fine, i cant prove u wrong, just let the person who gets subpena using mute prove the riaa wrong.

the fact is that they just need one ip address and claim that ip addresse send the data, in the eyes of the law they dont care if it was a node or someone else sending it, fact is that its up to the individual to prove other wise it wasnt them.

like i said mute is all good and dandy but its not anoymous even though u would like it to be.
thats the truth.
the instance that the riaa says thaat they received the data from said ip address automatically they will subpena that person. but the issue remains, that althought mute is not totally anoymous, it can help to protect someone.

another thing about the searches imho is that others can not browse other files, so say if u are sharing 500 mp3s or whatever they can only get u for sharing one file.
while this is the case mute is still not anoymous it does protect users to an extent and that little bit of difference is good enough reason to use mute.

other then that facts are facts.
peace

[Miniver]

look i am giving my opinion and i have used many p2p programs for along time and i will be straight up its not anoymous.
i can easily use a dial up account and get anyones ip addresses that i download off.
thats the truth. i am glad people wanna make p2p anoymous but lets get real why say its anoymous when its not.
can u please prove me wrong?
and i am not trying to dis mute i am just expressing myself and i feel the need to get answers. if i am wrong ok, but as of now i am not wrong.

but hey if u wanna prove otherwise its cool. i am willing to be presented with anything you say, because u might have more knowledge them me. point is this is just an opinion.

I never once said that Mute is 100% anonymous. Your file searches are, your downloads are, and your uploads are. But you're right Mute is not. No system designed to use Internet protocol can ever truly be anonymous because you must know what ip you are connected to.

[eivioolla]

The short answer to your question is NO.

The long answer is that you can make yourself less likely a target with the above techniques. If the RIAA or MPAA really wants to find out your identity, they can. No 'cloaking' or 'anonymitiy' feature is 100% fool proof.

Bla. Actually the RIAA doesn't even go after non Americans, so simply by showing non American IP address (proxy/bouncer/etc), you are practically 100% safe.

[c411Z]

but i don't think you can know what ip your are getting the file from in MUTE only the ip of the persons routing for you

i think it would be too hard for riaa/mpaa/bsa to gather evidence on a bit of a file not even from the orginator unless they acted as the proxy node to discover both partys identity and even they they would have to have some good programers to hack out a client that could do this ( the detection of the traffic becuse i think they would have to break the encryption of the packets too ) so now that i think about it they would have to be the downloader and the router to bust a source. hmmmm
and i also think the file takes different paths all the time so it would not be all routed via these same routers.

then wouldn't they have to prove you completed a file ( i haven't yet been able to:))?

so it gets mighty technical , y WASTE a jurys time when you can get one of those mainstream 1000+ people that will just pay up with no fight.

and i wanted to add about soulseek the feature to only add and share with people you know is a real safe route. probably safer than putting your trust into a DC hub admin and his judgement about who to register.

and for the guy who said he never had filtopia server splits room lockouts and freezes from hi ram use. i find it hard to believe.

[Miniver]

but i don't think you can know what ip your are getting the file from in MUTE only the ip of the persons routing for you

i think it would be too hard for riaa/mpaa/bsa to gather evidence on a bit of a file not even from the orginator unless they acted as the proxy node to discover both partys identity and even they they would have to have some good programers to hack out a client that could do this ( the detection of the traffic becuse i think they would have to break the encryption of the packets too ) so now that i think about it they would have to be the downloader and the router to bust a source. hmmmm
and i also think the file takes different paths all the time so it would not be all routed via these same routers.

then wouldn't they have to prove you completed a file ( i haven't yet been able to:))?

so it gets mighty technical , y WASTE a jurys time when you can get one of those mainstream 1000+ people that will just pay up with no fight.

and i wanted to add about soulseek the feature to only add and share with people you know is a real safe route. probably safer than putting your trust into a DC hub admin and his judgement about who to register.

and for the guy who said he never had filtopia server splits room lockouts and freezes from hi ram use. i find it hard to believe.

in fact you can only get the ip of the last person it was routed through and it goes through quite a few routers (more as the network grows) so they would actually have to be the dl'er and all of the proxies to catch the original uploader.

BTW: Is that Rosie the Riveter?

[crackerjacker]

yeah i can be a dial up user.
download a file from mute get someones ip address. i dont care which.
next thing subpena ya.
but really the riaa aint going to do this over one file.
only if u are sharing massive files, but hey this is just a scenario.
issue is the what ifs are shaky, what is revelent is getting the ip address interchangeably.
thats the issue at hand.

[Miniver]

yeah i can be a dial up user.
download a file from mute get someones ip address. i dont care which.
next thing subpena ya.
but really the riaa aint going to do this over one file.
only if u are sharing massive files, but hey this is just a scenario.
issue is the what ifs are shaky, what is revelent is getting the ip address interchangeably.
thats the issue at hand.

As I said b4, that will always be an issue until we stop using Internet protocol altogether. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

[crackerjacker]

As I said b4, that will always be an issue until we stop using Internet protocol altogether. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

and that is why mute is not anoymous like i said b4 as well
:)

[Miniver]

and that is why mute is not anoymous like i said b4 as well
:)

I never once said that Mute is 100% anonymous. Your file searches are, your downloads are, and your uploads are. But you're right Mute is not. No system designed to use Internet protocol can ever truly be anonymous because you must know what ip you are connected to.

thbbbbbbbt!

[crackerjacker]

thbbbbbbbt!

what algorithim your using now?
:)
*cough* *cough*

of course i am jk*

[Malicious Intent]

Well it sounds like you two have sussed it. I think that it is bad that MUTE uses the term anonymous. It is more like "hide enough information to make it a complete bitch to sue you". I found that being a proxy would be no defence in UK law, whether you knew your computer was doing it or not. If Canadian/US/Australian/Whatever law doesn't say that, then it is possible it might change. Jason is the first to admit he doesn't know the legal issues of proxies. The other advantage of MUTE is that if you did get busted, it wont be for your shared folder, but for each file that you proxy. This is $100,000 a shot isn't it? No case has settled for this anyway.
Can you not choose your neighbours in MUTE? I'm sure that I read that, but Miniver would have mentioned it by now if you could. That can reduce your chances of being connected directly to the RIAA.
MUTE is about improving your chances rather than providing anonymity.

[c411Z]

i think MUTE is the proably the most anonymous p2p app and that is safe to say

in other news a new snapshop of Freenet is out and they say it fixes the overload problems they were having

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/18/2311252&mode=thread&tid=153&tid=185&tid=99

[Miniver]

Well it sounds like you two have sussed it. I think that it is bad that MUTE uses the term anonymous. It is more like "hide enough information to make it a complete bitch to sue you". I found that being a proxy would be no defence in UK law, whether you knew your computer was doing it or not. If Canadian/US/Australian/Whatever law doesn't say that, then it is possible it might change. Jason is the first to admit he doesn't know the legal issues of proxies. The other advantage of MUTE is that if you did get busted, it wont be for your shared folder, but for each file that you proxy. This is $100,000 a shot isn't it? No case has settled for this anyway.
Can you not choose your neighbours in MUTE? I'm sure that I read that, but Miniver would have mentioned it by now if you could. That can reduce your chances of being connected directly to the RIAA.
MUTE is about improving your chances rather than providing anonymity.

You can choose your neighbors and the number of them. That's a good point. And of course peerguardian can still be used.

[c411Z]

You can choose your neighbors and the number of them. That's a good point. And of course peerguardian can still be used.


protowall seems to work allot better than peerguardian

what do you mean by chooseing neighbors?

[crackerjacker]

you fanboy *protowall*

[Malicious Intent]

Take a look at a p2p network, such as shown on the MUTE website:
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/experiments.shtml
As you can see, although there is no direct connection between the source and downloader, you still need to have a direct connection to other peers to be connected to the network. The IP address is known between the two computer directly connected. Therefore, when you join the network, you want as many of the people you have a direct connection with (i.e. neighbours) to be friendly. You can do this by saying who you want to connect to.

[crackerjacker]

Take a look at a p2p network, such as shown on the MUTE website:
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/experiments.shtml
As you can see, although there is no direct connection between the source and downloader, you still need to have a direct connection to other peers to be connected to the network. The IP address is known between the two computer directly connected. Therefore, when you join the network, you want as many of the people you have a direct connection with (i.e. neighbours) to be friendly. You can do this by saying who you want to connect to.

thanks for enlightement :)

btw one there that is kinda interesting with this program at least is that they will not be able to browse users folders or files they are sharing so its pretty safe for users to use.


-----------------
i am on fanboy mode
i love newsgroups hehe

[Miniver]

the newsgroups ARE the ultimate filesharing resource

[Nikidajen]

The point of mute is that the packets you get are encrpted. Your IP is only shared with 5 other computers. The encryption key is so long, and random, that even if your packet were intercepted, it would take Deep Blue to break the key. Mute is the safest thing out there. Surely it's safer than anything else going on with maybe the exception of an invite on IRC.

[zaphodiv]

No, there is not any internet anonymizer that does what you are asking. There are internet anonymizers that protect your IP from websites when using web browsers ONLY.


There are several proxy services which claim to do that in return for money.

[riderx]

There are several proxy services which claim to do that in return for money.
but they will have logs.
there is no p2p out there that is anoymous.
u want to be anoymous share with your friends.

nuff said