Most active commenters

    45 points codewiz | 11 comments | | HN request time: 1.401s | source | bottom
    1. Prbeek ◴[] No.41912798[source]
    For those who remember Lulzsec days there was a core member called Avunit who was the only one never apprehended. I wonder if he was a fed or just lucky
    replies(2): >>41913027 #>>41913789 #
    2. kuskosho ◴[] No.41913027[source]
    or maybe he didnt used his private email registered 10 years ago with socials related (and profile pic uploaded)
    3. ptek ◴[] No.41913028[source]
    If you want to play that game or the darknets game you may need to keep changing your alias which could be a problem as you will have to start from 0 again growing contacts and respect.

    Do new groups and users have kick ass ASCII logos in their t-files these days? I’m glad the 90s era of incorrect capitalisation is gone.

    replies(2): >>41913122 #>>41913206 #
    4. thelittleone ◴[] No.41913122[source]
    Sam Bent gave a talk on Darknet opsec in which he recommends what you suggest, regularly changing alias and starting from 0. Quite an interesting talk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oeaBb85Xc

    5. dmichulke ◴[] No.41913206[source]
    You could publish a key as each of these personas and then, when reestablishing a contact using a new persona, prove your identity to that one contact by using the private key of the old (known) persona.

    Am I missing something?

    replies(1): >>41913398 #
    6. nubinetwork ◴[] No.41913290[source]
    Related

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41878832

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41888449

    7. str3wer ◴[] No.41913398{3}[source]
    defeats the whole point of changing identity if you reveal who you were
    replies(1): >>41914003 #
    8. joemazerino ◴[] No.41913789[source]
    He was the Bitcoin treasurer of the group so its doubtful.

    His name was mentioned in Mr Robot as well.

    9. dmichulke ◴[] No.41914003{4}[source]
    You reveal it to a single (trustworthy) party that you want to reestablish contact with.

    Of course, this assumes you wouldn't want to reestablish contact with a non-trustworthy party.

    replies(1): >>41914043 #
    10. barryrandall ◴[] No.41914043{5}[source]
    A trail of evidence is still a trail of evidence.