Mystery startup from ex-Mozilla CEO aims to go where tech titans won't

This sounds interesting.

No to much information yet but he makes some interesting hints towards shareholders driving tech versus users and Oligopolies controlling the majority of technology.

He also has an interesting group of employees right now including those with TOR , securedrop, and IOT background.


Sadly I don't see any hardware or network type employees being highlighted, which makes it sound like this is just a software solution and likely TOR like.

I'm thinking browser and tor on steroids with some mesh type abilities? What are your speculations or have you found more info on this?


www.cnet.com...

the startup has begun work on software that promises to make the Internet safer and faster when the company publicly launches it in early 2016.

Today's tech giants like Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft wield tremendous power over the technology we all use daily, from smartphones at the center of our lives to communications with our closest contacts. But anyone who doesn't like those companies' policies has little choice, since boycotting one or another will just mean being cut off from the mainstream. Brave evidently aims to shift the balance of power toward the user through new software that will give people some ability to collectively push back.

"Since all the big powers are public companies, they have to serve their shareholders...We're trying to innovate in dimensions that a lot of incumbents won't innovate, where the user will have more control and maybe bargaining power."

There should be a service that has a list of global free proxy providers and anonymizes your junk by setting up random combinations of proxy hopping for you just like the pros do. TOR works, except how many 3letters are operating exit nodes? I've heard could be half or better. Not so good.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yeah TOR definitely has issues especially with the exit node.

With a software solution the weakness I see is the ISP and infrastructure.

Todo it with software I think the best approach might be anonymity by saturation: distributable reusable identification tags, nothing static. With a layer of individual custom encryption on top of standard encryption.

Maybe they will come up with a new protocol over TCP IP with a new addressing scheme that would provide additional anonymity ?

a reply to: interupt42

Alternative protocols exist, but I don't know why someone would choose to use anything but. UDP is for streaming, no verification of packets. Not reliable for sensitive data. IP is simply the internet protocol. You can utilize other protocols for different needs. If the goal is to thwart the NSA and ISP use public wifi and burner lappys. You could also use a direct wifi or hive/mesh network locally.

I had an idea years ago for a protocol, but never got funded to hire the tech talent. Won't go into details, but it could basically just hop and hop from wifi device and build lists of warez and chats like a virus spreading out to willing victims.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

The problem with mesh networks is that despite being around for a while they haven't caught on.

Thats why I mentioned that maybe they are working on something with mesh type abilities. Or perhaps hoping is the better term.'

I'm thinking browser and tor on steroids with some mesh type abilities?

The problem with TCIP is that you can identify the originator based on the packet layer information . Wishful thinking and unlikely to happen but maybe they came up with a new protocal overcoming the addressing issues by focusing on anonymity from the ground up?.

I'm not holding my breath for some revolutionary thing but keeping an eye on it nonetheless.

a reply to: interupt42

Here's an idea for them, if they are after some moonshot thinking.

A data net which:

1)Requires no user information.
2)Requires no proximity to routers, modems, or wifi equipment.
3)Allows communications to be sent from one machine to another without actually passing through a network of any kind, and without anyone other than sender or recipient even being aware that data has been sent.
4)Allows information to be instantly everywhere, all of the time, and has no bandwidth limitations.
5)Has no upper limits on storage or usage.
6)Costs nothing to access, use, or even abuse.
7)Cannot be backdoored, hacked, circumvented, shut down, diverted, EMP'd, or otherwise tampered with.
8)Cannot be repurposed, taken over, hijacked or shanghaied by either criminal organisations or governments in even the smallest way.

Just a thought!

a reply to: TrueBrit


1 I would expand 1 to not only include user information but device information.

2 , 3,5 and 6 Sounds like you are talking about a distributed mesh network

4 is interesting,

are you thinking like a distributed bit torrent type backbone? Where no complete file is stored on any one machine?

Or a push method type network where A file is uploaded and duplicated to all the nodes in the network in the background. Hence when you download a file or request a file it would be a local download versus going through an ISP or infrastructure and avoid snooping at the infrastructure level anyways.

While interesting concept I'm thinking it would require a FTL speed network with quantum storage devices .

7 and 8 will likely also require quantum level computing even then at this time their are some weakness.

Something to ponder. I like the idea of what untraceable anonymous networks we could come up with FTL speeds and quantum storage devices.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: interupt42

Here's an idea for them, if they are after some moonshot thinking.

A data net which:

...

Just a thought!

1 is doable, 2 only exists with a direct passover cable of some sort. 3, well this depends on how we define a network, it's kinda like how a plural always being more than 1, a network always has more than 1 device connected to another device. If it's two independent peers, then they don't connect. 4 is impossible, unless we're talking woowoo quantum something or another. 5 is the same, well at least it's impractical. Essentially unlimited is pricey. 6, cmon everything costs something in this world! 7 is pretty well impossible, too. There's always a way in, else you would have a sealed device that doesn't communicate with anyone else except a secure user in a secure room. Security is an ideal, not a reality. 8, well that's basically the same. In order to meet the requirements, you basically have to be a god. No god-mode yet.