Printable View
My provider doesn't support SSL encryption. I have PTD as a provider. I'm using NZB's with GrabIt. How safe/secure is it to download without using SSL encryption in terms that no one can find out? If I understand correctly people are telling me to use more Usenet over torrents since I'm paranoid that someone is going to bust me? I'm guessing they are referring to using Usenet with SSL? If so, what alternatives are there since my provider doesn't support SSL?
The question probably is, does anyone care what you're doing? If they care, without SSL they can see what you're downloading. If they don't care then it's just data flowing to your PC. I'd have no problem downloading without SSL because I don't think my ISP or the government cares what I do. If they REALLY wonder what you're doing, SSL won't protect you anyway. To me, SSL is good against casual snooping, my ISP for instance. Worthless against a powerful entity that is already interested in what I'm doing on the net.
It's altogether safer than Torrents because what you download is between you and your servers. When you're in a torrent swarm, other people in the swarm can ID your IP Address.
Thank you!
This. I don't use SSL either.Quote:
Originally Posted by B18C5
Say that coming July. Every ISP in the USA just about will start monitoring what you download. Think Usenet is free from that type of attention? You are sadly mistaken. Better to use SSL than not and it it has no impact on your connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonThis. I don't use SSL either.Quote:
Originally Posted by B18C5
Thankfully I don't live in the States...Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Decryption demands extra processing power. It's not terribly high, but it's there.Quote:
Better to use SSL than not and it it has no impact on your connection.
I'm not saying SSL is useless for everyone, as for example NTTP login data is transmitted in plain text. But I personally can do fine without it.
ThisQuote:
I'm not saying SSL is useless for everyone, as for example NTTP login data is transmitted in plain text. But I personally can do fine without it.
I'm skeptical. I think the ISP's are just playing lip service to the 'AA's to shut them up. I have no expectation that they'll pro-actively unYenc, and unrar files on the fly to see what I'm downloading. If they really want to, SSL isn't going to stop them. VPN out of the country or out of your ISP at least would be a better solution. Imagine the kind of horsepower they'd need to monitor terabytes of traffic every day. You'd have to have NSA levels of processing power to keep up AND not slow down the network.Quote:
Say that coming July. Every ISP in the USA just about will start monitoring what you download. Think Usenet is free from that type of attention? You are sadly mistaken. Better to use SSL than not and it it has no impact on your connection.
From a practical standpoint, I don't see how the ISP's can do it.
Usenet SSL encryption currently serves two main purposes: protecting logins from packet-sniffers when using public wi-fi, and defeating some ISP bandwidth-throttling mechanisms. For the other 90% of users, it's really not needed ... yet.
But lawmakers around the world are constantly being lobbied about the need for draconian new laws that will require ISPs to monitor their users' internet traffic in order to fight child porn. The apparent rationale perhaps being that if ISPs can catch all the kiddyporn downloaders and send them to prison, it will dry up the demand and therefore the supply, and hence save a lot of children from horrible abuse. Hey, we're all for saving children, right?
But if history is any guide, once these "limited scope, we promise!" laws pass and the file-ID systems are in operation, they will constantly be expanded on - very gradually and quietly - and will in time be used to monitor a lot more than just child porn. How odd it is that Hollywood appears to be a major engine driving this moral crusade!
Quote:
House Bill 3280, the Internet Service Provider Anti-Child Pornography Law, while certainly well-intentioned, would create a laundry list of problems for civil liberties and the technical function of the Internet. In short, the bill would require ISPs to intercept, reassemble, and compute a hash value for every file Illinois residents transmit or receive over the Internet, compare this hash value to a registry of known child pornography, and block any file that has a matching hash.
Code:https://www.cdt.org/category/blogtags/internet-service-provider-anti-child-pornography-law?issue=79
I did not know that. I thought they wouldn't find out on Usenet? I guess I'm wrong? Will using SSL help coming in July? I am pretty sure my ISP doesn't support SSL. Will someone confirm that for me? I have PTD, and the website is ptd.net
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1Say that coming July. Every ISP in the USA just about will start monitoring what you download. Think Usenet is free from that type of attention? You are sadly mistaken. Better to use SSL than not and it it has no impact on your connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57...col;topStoriesQuote:
I did not know that. I thought they wouldn't find out on Usenet?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...rting-july-12/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/1...me-on-july-12/
Even if it was true. You get 6 warnings before you get cut off. I think you can turn SSL on in between the first and second warning. Or use a VPN located outside the country and not bother with SSL still. They're implying the ISPs will act like copyright cops but, what I read is they agreed to automate the process of warning offenders so, the 'AA's can trigger the warnings more easily.
From the Cnet article.Quote:
The ISPs can waive the mitigation measure if they choose and not one of the service providers has agreed to permanently terminate service.