Talk:AnoNet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please use this page as a place to ask questions about AnoNet, so that the FAQ on the AnoNet public website can be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.57.85.123 (talk • contribs).

No, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. They exist so we can discuss the contents and quality of the article (which I think there is plenty of room for given the current state of the article). Haakon 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fails to meet quality standards

  • Is not NPOV
  • Incomplete -- needs info on typical usage and relevance of anoNet.

I think the phrase "Even in the most liberal democratic nations, law enforcement authorities have been known to engage in privacy-breaching activities." is somewhat slanted. While it is /true/ it's patently unfair to characterize every FBI activity that involves such a network as a breach of privacy.

If someone is on Freenet or anoNet is trading child pornography, I fully support tracking them down and bringing them in. I am trying to rewrite it but it's hard not to devolve into a full-scale war over whether anonymous online networks are a good idea. Suggestions appreciated. Wrath0fb0b 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen the POV before I edited it heavily. Some POV, like the one you pointed out, still remains. I suspect it can more or less simply be ripped out. You can avoid flamewars simply by not adding more POV (such as whether traceability is good or bad etc). Haakon 09:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree Haakon, regardless of the activities being performed, it's still a breach of privacy. Rhetoric about saving the children does not change that the police would be raiding someplace that they were not wanted nor invited maas15 02:14AM, 25/5/07

I am one of the founders of anoNet and this article is horribly out of date. I am going to try and clean it up, but my wiki skills are not the best so please bear with me. Rn zippy 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With the chaotic nature of random addressing, it is not necessary to hide link IP addresses. These are already known.

The current article states "With the chaotic nature of random addressing, it is not necessary to hide link IP addresses. These are already known." I don't quite understand. Does it mean "ISP provided IP addresses are known only by the members who you directly connect to." ? What about the fact that all documents published by the same author will be associated with the same VPN IP address ? It could help spies to build a database of facts about this author and/or do traffic analysis in order to find who he really is. Touisiau

[edit] CP's port number

Would it be possible to add port 80, 81 or 8080 to the ovpn config? This I ask because of the nature of some of our employers filtering by the port level and like to only allow certain port numbers and can't set up a server at home for various reasons to do this. So instead of port no. 5555, would the previous mentioned no.'s be appropriate or available? It *IS* a big thing to ask, but hopefully the CP admin will be able to fulfill this inquiry..

One more thing. Those of us who have actually peered with the CP's admin, will the only change that's needed is the IP listed in the new CP .conf listed on anonet.org?

Thanks!