I clicked around a bit, read the manifesto, I still have no idea what these people do. I guess they claim to have been around for a while, but a bunch of the links don't work and the manifesto has definitely been updated to reflect 2026 opinions.

What is this?

They host blogs and email used by many activists.

Autistici/Inventati is an Italian collective, active since around 2001, that runs free digital services for activists, grassroots groups and anyone who wants to communicate without being profiled.

It provides email accounts, mailing lists, blogs, websites, chat and VPN access.

Is it truly anyone, or only anyone that politically aligns with them?

Anyone that politically aligns with them. They say that explicitly:

We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism

They don't receive any money for this. It's 100% volunteer services.

Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair.

You want them to be "held accountable" for supporting groups that don't align with the ideology of the US whitehouse.

If you select who you provide services to based on their ideology, you can’t shrug and say “I’m just an infrastructure provider, same as the electrical grid” when it turns out that some of those individuals committed crimes using the stuff you gave them.

That’s a very different situation compared to the standard “sign up with your email here”. The provider is responsible because they picked their clients, rather than their clients picking them.

being selective about who you provide free services to makes you an activist group?

Yes, see, if you sell guns, but you only sell guns to people who promise to use them for defense, but don't sell them to people who promise to murder, that makes you an activist gun seller and personally responsible for whatever happens with those guns.

Either you wanted to be sarcastic or your simile did not work well.

fair

No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way".

When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". This is similar to people here calling certain positions "centrist" or "extremist" - and that entirely depends on how those positions are interpreted beyond their dumb (not telling) label, and on the dumb labels over said labels.

Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do".

It’s absolutely not a normal thing to do for entities that want to use the “we are just infrastructure, our users are responsible for their actions” excuse.

In fact, such entities (e.g. power grid, telecom) are often legally prohibited from choosing their clients, and in exchange aren’t held responsible for what their clients do with their services.

Did you click on https://www.inventati.org/about ? (I also tried reading the manifesto first.)

From it:

We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism

I suspect they have some "not mainstream" political views; although I think understanding what these views are requires more in-depth reading of the blogs that they host.

some "not mainstream" political views

I would say they are pretty "mainstream" (or very widespread) in some territories. I have seen bartenders wearing those 'anti-' terms on their t-shirts at work.

Anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, and anti-militarism?

Good?

Yeah, that says pretty much nothing about what they do. It reads like an enterprise tech company webpage saying "we provide solutions to help transform your company into the digital age".

It’s a sad day when antifascism is considered not mainstream

It is intentionally vague. From the State Dept:

The A/I Collective exclusively offers its tools and services to radical left-wing actors and manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure.

I don't trust the US State Department to tell the truth. At this point, it's like citing a Wikipedia edited entirely by bad faith actors.

In this case the US State Department is accurately reciting what this organization says about itself openly: https://www.inventati.org/about

Maybe a honeypot?

For what it's worth, the people I have known personally who talk like this don't actually do very much except talk like this. Then again, they have never been sanctioned by a government.

There's a lot of talking around this in the comment section for some reason: they allegedly provide infrastructure for recognized terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Palestine Action (the group that attacked UK air force bases).

So does WhatsApp

Knowingly and intentionally?

Yes.

There is also an article on we will free us [1] if you want to dive deeper into that rabbit hole.

[1] https://www.wewillfreeus.org/the-server-called-paranoia-defe...

The article is quite long, but these two give a brief idea of what is going on:

a) According to that article, what it seems they are about:

Its manifesto describes the project in explicitly political terms. A/I is antifascist, anti-capitalist and antimilitarist. It promotes free software, encryption, pseudonymity and the independent circulation of knowledge and cultural work. It reserves its limited, volunteer-run resources for people and projects broadly compatible with those principles rather than businesses, political parties, organized religions or institutions already possessing the means to make themselves heard.

b) And the issue U.S. has with them:

The United States alleges that A/I supplies specialized digital architecture, encrypted communications and hosting to antifascist groups and other radical movements, including organizations already designated by the United States.

So anti-fascism ist deemed an extreme movement by the US government? What does that say about them?

A tactic of certain "anti-fascist" groups is to simply call anyone they don't like fascist and attack them. Just like actual fascists used to excuse violence as "anti-communist".

Claiming to be anti-fascist doesn't actually make them anti-fascist nor excuse them from breaking laws.

A tactic of certain fascist groups is to simply claim their opponents simply call anyone they don't like fascist and attack them. How can we objectively decide who's right?

Have objective laws and prosecute people who break them.

How will that tell us who the fascists are?

We should have LLMs decide.

Do you even have a definition of fascist?

Is it:

1) Right wingers

2) People who hate Jews and glorify Hitler

3) Governments who make laws requiring corporations to cooperate with the state

[The US State Dept's] examples include alleged railway and pipeline sabotage in Europe, attacks on energy infrastructure, Rose City Antifa, resistance to Atlanta’s proposed police-training center, Jane’s Revenge and publications carrying statements attributed to armed organizations.

At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training center) lumped in with violent attacks on infrastructure? This isn't the first time either - Samuel Tunick, the man who was charged with destruction of evidence for giving his duress pin to the CBP agents, was being investigated for his connection to the Cop City protests.[1]

And as others have said, what does it say about the current US admin that they are designating "anti-fascist" groups as terrorists? I will say, at least unlike Cop City protests afaik, Rose City Antifa seems willing to use violence to accomplish their goals.[2]

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-pro...

[2]: https://rosecityantifa.org/articles/statment-on-strategy-and...

violent attacks

on energy infrastructure

that's not violence

When it's -30c outside and your house hasn't had heating for days, you might disagree.

For those like me who don't have context, here is the New York Times article on this recent news / event

https://archive.fo/e8Gss

The State Department on Wednesday designated three groups based in Europe, including two that advocate Palestinian rights, as transnational terrorist organizations.

The move is part of the Trump administration’s fight against what it calls a “resurgence of far-left political terrorism” worldwide, a focus that many security experts say is disproportionate.

In a statement, the department said that it would impose sanctions on Palestine Action, which is based in Britain and organizes acts of support for Palestinians and opposition to Israeli policies; Masar Badil, another pro-Palestinian group with branches in Western Europe and Canada; and Autistici/Inventati, known as A/I Collective, which is based in Italy and offers free digital tools to leftist activists around the world.

a/I collective in the OP is the third on this list.

based in Italy and offers free digital tools to leftist activists around the world

Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). Masar Badil supports "armed struggle". One of the other groups ("hammer") recently designated a terrorist group (and linked to A/I Collective in another article I read ) got its name by attacking people in Germany with hammers.

Designating A/I Collective a terrorist group is different as it is not directly supporting violence, but it is providing free services to people who do, and it says it provides services to groups its aim is to "provide support exclusively to individuals or groups we feel we have an affinity with.". On the other hand their terms forbid "military use" which is broadly defined enough to rule out terrorism.

I think its likely they do have sympathy for violent groups, n the other hand, unless they have been going out of their way to support violence in some way I do not see reasonable grounds for banning them. Lots of commercial services have dodgy users. My fear is that is is heading in the direction of "if you do not hand info to the US authorities on demand you will be deemed a terrorist"

Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft

This is already an extreme perversion of justice all on its own. Damaging military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism. This is simply armed conflict.

Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades. I would say the case for targetting military equipment is stronger than for damaging most other things.

This is simply armed conflict.

Armed conflict by residents and citizens against the state is usually a serious criminal offense everywhere.

Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades.

Does that include property in Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon? Because if the people who spray painted something are "terrorists", I want to know what the people who wiped Rafah off the face of the earth are called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah

Damaging property for political ends

Damaging military equipment is a military end, not a political one. If it were otherwise, then a military attacking a military would definitionally be terrorism. At that point, you've removed the utility of the word "terrorism" from English and made it synonymous with "armed conflict."

Terrorism being done chiefly to change policies by terrorizing people through symbolic acts is a constrained, generally-accepted definition of terrorism.

Contrast with 9/11, where symbols of American capitalism, filled with civilians, were attacked in order to terrify people who have nothing to do with those buildings into supporting changes in policy that hurt the US.

I suppose the UK could declare Palestine Action as combatants and hunt them down and shoot them.. but that doesn't seem very uh, appropriate. I sort of prefer them being arrested and going through courts.

Note that the UK would be committing war crimes in this case, since you are not allowed to murder unarmed soldiers, you are supposed to capture them and put them in POW camps.

Which is typically called „arresting“ when a government does it to their own citizens…

PA was armed.

you are not allowed to murder unarmed soldiers,

That's also false, you can absolutely kill unarmed combatants so long as they remain combatants. Eg you can bomb an artillery crew even if they don't have sidearms.

To be eligible for capture, a combatant must generally surrender.

typically called „arresting“ when a government does it to their own citizens

I encourage you to read up on POW camps. There are no attorneys or rights. You may work POWs. There are cases in which food and medical aid can be severely limited depending on how it is sourced. You may hold POWs functionally forever.

Well the definition is flawed, or as the British say, the law is an ass.

Terrorism is widely understood to be the deployment of military force against civilian populations. Of course states do this all the time, but 'state terrorism' is basically dependent on whether politicians in country A align with country B or not; if they don't, they'll call out state abuses in country B as state terrorism, if not they'll say it's law and order.

Regardless of these nuances, extending the definition to include any kind of property damage is just laughably opportunist.

any kind of property

"Any kind" is quite the load bearing argument there. Let me remind you Europe is under an ongoing land invasion, which is why fucking with its defensive capabilities is unlikely to solicit much sympathies.

You mean Russia invading Ukraine, right? Were these jets helping Ukraine or were they helping Israel?

Neither. They were part of anti-ISIS/ISIL operations.

Are you sure you want to say it's armed conflict? That makes it legitimate to kill members of Palestine Action.

Do you think that's a different understanding of the situation than the one that the state currently has?

Is it not "legitimate" in the same way to kill terrorists?

I am not an expert on the legalities. My impression is that, if they are terrorists, you kind of have to catch them in the act, or preparing to act, or providing support for actions. An army, in wartime, can be attacked in broader circumstances.

Corrections welcome if I am wrong.

Damaging military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism.

I hope no one takes this seriously.

If you're caught sabotaging equipment on a US military installation in many cases they are authorized to use deadly force and you'll be held accountable under the UCMJ. The absolute best outcome is you're designated a terrorist and live to see a prison cell.

Terrorism used to be defined as attacking civilian targets to aid in political messaging.

Attacking military targets is somewhere between an insurgency, partisanism, or an armed conflict.

If we let terrorism mean “any act against the state”, then people who burn police cars are the same as people who plant bombs in shopping malls.

Terrorism used to be defined as attacking civilian targets to aid in political messaging.

Not consistently, and its not a clear definition.

The same groups that attacked civilians in places I have lived in also attacked military targets as part of the same strategy. Terrorism is used to threaten, divert resources from front lines, cause economic damage, etc. Civilian targets are attacked in most wars. Is a car bomb outside a military barracks that different from one in a civilian area? What about a suicide bomb aimed at a sentry on a civilian road? I was about to drive past that one. Are the civilians who were killed collateral damage from an attack on a military target or victims of terrorism?

people who burn police cars

So people who attack a civilian target. By your own definition they are terrorists if they are doing it for political motives.

Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable).

That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Definitions of "terrorism" that extend to sabotage against occupying or invading militaries and their allies are meaningless and hollow dilutions. At that point the discourse has been reduced to something like "violence is scary".

This use is also interesting (and galling) because it frames disarming as an unacceptably violent act.

There are some definitions of terrorism that leave room to designate attacks against professional agents of state violence as "terror", e.g., attacks on soldiers who are off-duty, attacks on civilian police forces, attacks on nominally civilian intelligence organizations like the CIA, etc.

Imo such uses of the words "terror" and "terrorism" should be considered carefully, because sometimes they are meaningful or useful, but often they are essentially attempts to hoodwink the public. Effectively they are designed so that any attack against an occupying army by a faction too weak to muster a permanent standing army of equal strength falls into the "terrorism" category, which means invasion is "war" but resistance is "terrorism".

The notion of "civilian" or "non-combatant" isn't always straightforward, either. In the history of the PKK, for example, one of the "civilian" forces targeted by bombings and shootings were a local militia whose sole purpose was suppressing popular unrest among local Kurdish populations who were forbidden from speaking their own native languages, celebrating their holidays, etc. Formally these militias were not part of an army. But their scarcely concealed function was suppression of the local population, unlike (for example) a proper civilian police force whose role is at least nominally to promote public safety, assist vulnerable (weak, elderly, disabled) citizens with daily life, investigate crimes, mediate/de-escalate disputes, etc.

Anyway, it's worth sitting down and thinking through a few different serious definitions of terrorism and asking yourself what use they are. One or more definitions will likely stand out to you as particularly useful when it comes to thinking through things like the safety of innocents, the morality and bounds of acceptable political activism, and other topics that might directly affect your comfort and safety. You'll often find that governments and large press organizations try to trade on the emotional impact of those definitions while operating under rather different ones that are more convenient for themselves.

That pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Definitions of "terrorism" that extend to sabotage against occupying or invading militaries and their allies are meaningless and hollow dilutions.

British people attacking British forces are not sabotaging an occupying or invading military.

which means invasion is "war" but resistance is "terrorism"

That's the definition every undemocratic occupying power uses.

Here's my "nuanced" take: If a pro-zionist group were officialy designated as terrorists for spraying paint into a jet-engine I would find that ridiculous too.

Sabotage of military aircraft is political violence.

It's direct action. Violence is direct action against people's bodies, not property directly involved in genocide.

How are British refuelling and transport aircraft directly involved in genocide?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/palestine-group-attacks-raf-...

Its definitely not OK to vandalise things, and if is not terrorism what is it? War? In which case expect the military to shoot back.

What about their attack that disabled a police officer mentioned in this thread. That is an attack on her body.

I don't think a country is well-served by an overly broad definition of terrorism.

You might disagree: the fact that you mention the military "shooting back" when we're discussing a jet-engine being sabbotaged suggests that you believe a state is allowed to be / ought to be disproportionate in its violence towards its citizens.

Spraying paint into the jet engine of a military aircraft is not "terrorism". It may be criminal, but it was not in any way a violent crime. Given that it disabled the aircraft, it counts as more than mere vandalism, but calling this an act of terror is outrageous.

The logic seems to be that Hamas has committed terrorist attacks against Israel, and is also the government of Palestine, so anyone fighting for the human rights of Palestinian people is actually materially supporting Hamas terrorism against Israelis. That does not really track if you know anything at all about what's going on in Palestine right now, or what people's actual criticisms of Israel are.

Terrorism is often defined as actions designed to invoke political change.

There's no actual requirement for violence for it to be terrorism.

https://cavallette.noblogs.org/2026/08/10076 - Direct link to the sanctions declaration.

The actual Treasury Announce here - https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616/

"The Autistici Inventati is an Italy-based far-left organization that provides a range of technological tools and services to violent left-wing extremist groups, including website hosting on foreign servers, encrypted email accounts, chat and video conferencing, and digital architecture associated with its “Noblogs” platform. Autistici Inventati identifies itself as an “anti-fascist” and “anti-militarist” organization opposed to capitalism and exclusively provides its services to vetted individuals, collectives, and groups it perceives to be aligned with its ideology, including to sanctioned terrorist organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been designated by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for its use of terrorist tactics leading to thousands of deaths in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria since its establishment in 1984.

Autistici Inventati is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, an act of terrorism."

How quaint. The MEK (Iranian People's Mudjahheddin) were designated as a terrorist organization but collected money in EU streets all the time. Now they are useful against Khamenei.

The US would also like to use the equivalent of the PKK in the large Kurdish part of Iran against Khamenei.

Nothing to say of using the PKK rebranding of SDF in Syria as well as receiving "global terrorist" Al Jolani in the White House.

I guess bombing them got some pushback.

Everyone's a terrorist nowadays.

Our financial strategy relies exclusively on voluntary donations.

That is not a sustainable strategy in the long term. Sure after this news they will get lots of donations, but long term it is not something that is realistic.

Since they are now "sanctioned" by the US you cannot legally donate to them even if you wanted to...*[0]

[0] *Unless you now know why this collective needs crypto more than ever.

Since they are now "sanctioned" by the US you cannot legally donate to them even if you wanted to...*[0]

There are many of us who do not live in the US, so many still can. Just not through paypal.

That's not how US sanctions work. When the US sanctions something, nobody is allowed to donate to them. Basically any country that trades with the US (most) has to follow according to their trade deals. Any bank that wants to be in SWIFT must block any transfers

Any bank that wants to be in SWIFT must block any transfers.

Given that SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium and Italy's major bank is one of the 24 banks on the SWIFT board, how does this "blockade" in SWIFT happen? Is the inference that all of the banks bow down to the US, even though the US only represents 2 out of the 24 banks on the board?

Maybe they should try couping the Italian government, rename themselves to Ragazzi Orgogliosi. That should help.

Look up Operation Gladio

What does it entail, in practice?

They are sanctioned, okay, and? What happens practically.

Anything between having their google profiles deleted to abducted and tortured at a CIA blacksite.

The consequences may include the loss of:

  • Bank accounts and payment processing.
  • U.S.-linked donations and fundraising services.
  • Hosting, cloud infrastructure and upstream network services.
  • Domain registration and related technical services.
  • Certificate, security and email-delivery accounts.
  • Software and communications services.
  • Relationships with non-U.S. providers frightened by American secondary   sanctions.
  • Access for people in the United States who currently use A/I’s services.

https://www.wewillfreeus.org/the-server-called-paranoia-defe...

My question now is whether European hosting providers sprouting up in the face of the US CLOUD act will step up to provide those services.

Do you think many banks worldwide would enjoy declaring themselves the enemies of the US government in order to assist left-wing lunatics?

They will become pariahs financially speaking. Nobody will be authorized to wire money to/from them. It's brutal.

Nobody

In the USA - the consequences should be only related to USA pertinent actors. The newspapers in Italy say, "there is no judgement against them in Italy".

If Italy doesn't shut down their services, the Italy itself will be shut out of SWIFT.

...then* Italy itself will be shut out of SWIFT.

SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium. Only 2 banks out of the total 24 on the board of directors is US banks. Unless there's a hostile takeover of the SWIFT organisation by the US, I think this is a bit of a stretch. (Plot-twist: Italy is on the board of directors.)

SWIFT abides by international law and local laws. Including those against processing money transfer requests for terrorist organizations like A/I.

SWIFT refused to shunt out the Brazilian banks that kept providing services to the public figures involved on the Bolsonaro trial last year.

"Brazilian banks" were never classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. It is a specific designation and law that comes with 20 year prison sentences.

Italy itself will be

Because of a decision from the USA administration? ?!

If you donate to them from the US, you probably get put on a no-fly list at a minimum. Maybe even a friendly visit from the feds at your home!

US sanctions mean if you trade with the santioned org.. YOU get sanctioned (lose access to trade or financial systems controlled by US or US companies like Visa)

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n...

If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem.

What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

Isn't it just as likely they are using facebook, instagram, and tiktok?

If you have real operational security concerns, your provider shouldn't know anything about you; should in fact have bilateral shielding between themselves and you to prevent either counterparty from learning stuff. That's how Signal works.

Impossible for a public thing though, noblogs.org will always be traceable to where noblogs.org is hosted because that's how the packets get there.

You can maintain much better opsec in a two way communication than a broadcast.

Right, I'm only moved to comment by the implications being drawn on this thread that Signal and WhatsApp are next. Different fact patterns and different legal standards.

Signal and WhatsApp are already required to give your communications to the government.

Signal and WhatsApp don't have the plaintext of your communications to begin with.

Then they're breaking the law

But Signal requires a working phone number for registration and it knows the phone number. The backend could be modified at any time to store this somewhere else while maintaining end to end encryption between the two parties communicating on it. How can Signal prove continuously that it doesn’t store or disseminate the phone number? I know in past precedent it has told courts that it only has very limited information (date of account creation and the last time of account access).

This is about finances. If the US declares you a terrorist organization, you cannot do any banking anymore, even outside the US, since most banks do not want to gamble on SWIFT access.

Since the US considers anything "antifa" as terrorism now, it already had most concerning distant effects last year. See GLS bank cancelling Rote Hilfe in Germany. 1933 was the last time Rote Hilfe was cancelled, btw. It's an antifa OG. Pretty good indicator about the status quo..

Anyway, look at e.g. GrapheneOS, which is already treated as probable cause by law enforcement. Encrypted messaging also super sus. Thing is, funding can't escape jurisdictions. Signal servers are not running on love and fellowship, but donations and public money. Opsec won't protect your software stack's foundation against US finance attacks.

This OFAC action isn't based on "antifa", though the press release predictably takes shots at it. It's based on three designated foreign terrorist organizations, notably the PKK.

It's based on three designated foreign terrorist organizations, notably the PKK.

In this context, "designated foreign terrorist organizations" is not an explanation, but a tautology. The matter at hand is how and why something got onto that list.

The antifa remark relates to the Rote Hilfe situation. In my opinion, it's an example of how populist rhetoric became a major overreach with real consequences prior to the incident at hand. Rote Hilfe had a very weak relation to "Antifa Ost" (hardly worth US attention). That's how they got cancelled: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

So the antifa moral panic is indeed very much relevant.

But decide for yourself, if "Antifa Ost" deserves US anti-terrorism attention to the extent of OFAC sanctions, or if it's maaaybe populist action... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_left-wing_extremism_tr...

Incidentally, funny how the NSU isn't on that list, hm?

It's neither an explanation nor a tautology; it's an element of US law.

PKK is the pretext, there is no evidence.

The US does not give a damn about PKK. They used the Kurdish sister organizations in Syria and Iran. They condemn PKK because Erdogan wants it.

The US would have zero issues with a Kurdish state comprising parts of Turkey and Iran that splinters the region even more.

Signal will allow traffic analysis. You send the message to signal, if they wish they can write down to whom they send it on.

It is impossible to make a secure system without the continuous transmission of dummy messages to large numbers of users.

Again: in every system there's always some kind of sleuthing you could do to attempt to identify a user. That's not the legal standard. The complaint against A/I is that they knowingly and deliberately assisted the PKK.

No. With dummy messages you are guaranteed that traffic analysis will not be possible.

Because you connect to the network, then start sending messages to everybody continuously, a message every second, or every ten seconds, or every 100 seconds, you will, every second, or every ten seconds, or 100 seconds, be able to send a message to whoever you want, and you will not be distinguished in any way from the other network participants, even if an adversary controls all nodes but that of the person you want to communicate with. Without dummy messages, traffic analysis will always be possible.

If they knowingly and deliberately assisted the PKK in a forbidden way, there would likely have been an Italian prosecution. Since this hasn't happened, it probably isn't true.

The illegality of the PKK in the Europe is also something quite complicated. The commission have declared it a terrorist organization, but here in Sweden such declaration have no judicial meaning and we define terrorism by whether the organization satisfies objective criteria defined in our law, which the courts determine from case to case (which in Sweden means that if you send money the PKK and prosecutor brings the case and argues that they're terrorist organization, and you argue badly, and he wins, then you might be convicted, but when another guy does the same thing, and argues well, he wins); and the situation in Belgium is similarly complicated, with a legal dispute about whether PKK was a terrorist organization, which PKK won, and thus the PKK was, in Belgium, declared by a court to not be a terrorist organization.

I don't have an opinion about the PKK. My broad take is: if Europe doesn't care, there's no reason for the US to be leading a sanctions effort. I'm confident like everybody else that this is largely pretextual.

All I care about is the claim that if they can do this to A/I they'll come for Signal next. That doesn't follow.

The issue is complicated.

Many EU governments care, because Turkey cares, but the problem is that Turkey's position that they're terrorists is legally iffy, so a lot of European courts disagree, and this creates a schizophrenic situation where politicians hold that they're terrorist and will claim that it's the government position, while the actual government position in the courts is that they mostly aren't and that it's a case-by-case question.

I mean, the PKK definitely was a terrorist organization!

No. With dummy messages you are guaranteed that traffic analysis will not be possible.

I don't think that's true.

There are two possibilities: If you're proposing that dummy messages are in addition to normal messages, then dummy messages add noise to the signal, but over a long enough time, for known noise distribution, it is possible for the signal to be statistically significant. That depends on there being enough signal, but then things depend on signal traffic patterns, there are no guarantees.

The second possible design is that the node-to-node communication volumes for any pair of nodes is truly independent of the signal - i.e. the statistical model decides how much traffic flows from a node to another node, and that fixed amount of flow is either used for signal or for noise, and if there is more signal, it's dropped or waits. Encryption makes it impossible to distinguish signal from noise without the key known between the pair of nodes. That is secure against a passive adversary who doesn't participate in the network. However, if network users are anonymous and mutually untrusting, then the adversary can use active methods without much risk (i.e. lots of users and nodes can actually be the adversary). Every packet/message delayed or dropped also allows inference about network traffic by other users.

These methods can harden a network and make analysis harder, but they don't guarantee it is not possible.

No, you always send a dummy message the appointed time.

If you have a real message, or a network maintenance message, that substitutes for a dummy message. You never send messages other than at the appointed time.

Delayed or dropped messages won't matter, since you only send a message at the appointed time. So the network is literally indistinguishable from one where you have sent no messages to all participants and to even someone with complete control of the network.

Do messages have a visible receiver address of any kind? In that case, you're out of luck. The only way to do make this statistically sound would involve an insane amount of messages, rendering it impossible.

A problem with sending dummy messages on something like Signal, is that waking up phones unnecessarily is really bad for battery life. It also doesn't work for the voice/video call feature, since that needs to be realtime.

They don't have to do that because accounts are associated one-to-one with phone numbers.

I don't understand your comment.

Signal doesn't need traffic analysis because it knows the phone numbers of who is communicating.

I noticed that more are using Session now and not Signal (no phone number or email required)

https://getsession.org

Monero is delisted from exchanges in Canada because the anonymity makes it impossible to comply with anti-money laundering regulations. It makes it a lot harder to acquire the coins or to turn them into liquidity. The government is also going hard against encryption with law c-22, which will make Signal stop providing service in the country.

They will only catch the amateurs. But they can pat themselves on the back I guess that did something.

It does more than catch amateurs, it's a heavy blow against the adoption and usefulness

This isn't comparable to the legality issues in particular countries, a comparatively minor threat for FOSS software projects. If the US declares your organization as terrorist, you'll lose banking access globally by leveraging the SWIFT system. The US influence has always been problematic, but this is now blatantly abused for MAGA populism.

All this means eg. Signal would not be able to escape jurisdictions, because no bank anywhere relevant will endanger their SWIFT access opposing the US. Sanctioned Signal would stop providing services for everyone, since they can't pay for servers, neither being able to receive donations, nor wire any money themselves. It's similar prior situations involving payment processors (e.g. in case of Wikileaks), but has totalitarian reach affecting almost all banking globally.

They can potentially play a cat and mouse game for a while, if none of the transactions actually say "For Signal" on them

It makes it a lot harder to acquire the coins or to turn them into liquidity.

Not really, unless exchanges don't let you withdraw coins into your own wallet? It's trivial for someone to buy another coin like BTC/ETH then use it to purchase Monero via defi.

It is not unprecedented, but a lot of fools lauded moves like this when these kind of instruments were used with barely a legal net around them against islamic terrorism or cybercrime.

I'm not crying for no Al-Qaeda or 8chan, mind you. In this very year UN and ICJ officials have been targeted in a similar fashion though. When the pax americana ends like this, I don't know what else is needed for EU and Asia to raise tougher walls around the woes of any idiot hyped enough to be voted by USA citizens.

I think the same people who opposed a/i sanctions (not AI sanctions but they're really missing out by not exploiting that confusion) also opposed sanctions for """islamic terrorism""" and for """cybercrime""".

It's the logic of Jack Bauer taken to the end. "Come on, it's obvious who the bad guys are, who needs rules?" until suddenly it's not obvious anymore...

My conspiracy theory is that "24" was funded by the CIA (etc.) to build public support for measures like the Patriot Act. "24" debuted 11 days after the Patriot Act became law, so they were being worked on at the same time.

Is that even a conspiracy? It's well documented how closely the military works with Hollywood -- of course government apparatuses are interested in funding media that aligns with their goals.

And it was a Fox production. Using the most obvious shill isn't very covert.

The democrats introduced the patriot act...

except that's not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

On October 23, 2001, U.S. representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced House bill H.R. 3162, which incorporated provisions from a previously-sponsored House bill, and a Senate bill introduced earlier in the month.[5] The next day, October 24, the Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66,[6] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming majority of "no"-votes.

The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed by President Bush on March 9 and 10 of that year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

Why do you need the detour through the CIA? Our de jure Constitutional government is merely part of a much larger de facto government formed by large corporations and the billionaire (oligarch) class. The same group of people who funded the lobbyists that had the "Patriot" Act ready and waiting on September 10th also funded "24", the politicians and think tanks behind the Iraq War, and so on. The main difference is that production of "24" was a direct bona fide business expense for tax purposes.

A conspiracy theory without a shadowy government organization is just a conspiracy.

It doesn’t even need to be secret or underhanded. The government can simply foster the media that drives their strategic goals. Same kind of idea as stochastic terror.

And just like stochaistic terror, it's a label you can apply to basically any media you don't like, that seems to support a political agenda you are opposed to.

You’re missing something else that happened right before 24 debuted on November 6, 2001.

Don't forget the X-Files spinoff The Lone Gunmen. During its pilot episode, first airing March 4th, 2001, members of the U.S. government remotely hijack an airliner and try to crash it into the World Trade Center, blaming anti-American terrorist groups in order to start a new global war on terrorism for the profit of defense industry contractors.

8chan's /pol/ wasn't any different than 4chan's. the reason why the 4 is tolerated but the 8 got axed is that 4 is a honeypot and 8 wasn't.

the reason why the 4 is tolerated but the 8 got axed is that 4 is a honeypot and 8 wasn't

That's certainly a take.

My personal take is that 4chan actually complies with the US laws, specifically the ones around promptly removing+reporting any illegal content that the US cares about (e.g., terrorism threats/CSAM/etc.), and 8chan doesn't.

Out of curiosity, what makes you consider 4chan to be a honeypot, as opposed to it just being a platform that simply complies with the relevant laws?

I will admit, I've spent barely a few minutes on 8 in my lifetime, so I am not equipped to judge the nuance of their situation much. With 4 though, it's been an on-and-off thing for me over the past ~15 years.

Regarding the honeypot allegations, I'm guessing they're referring to the connections between 4chan's founder, Christopher Poole, aka "moot", and Jeffrey Epstein:

https://www.ms.now/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-4chan-chris-poole

That article tells me 4chan wasn't a honeypot but used by Epstein for his chaos or at least he thought about using it.

/pol was made in October 2023 after a meeting between moot and Epstein. 4chan may not have been a honeypot but it’s likely that /pol was influenced heavily by Epstein/Maxwell which indicates a plausible link between/pol and Mossad aligned Intel activities at least.

But /new/ was from before then and was essentially the precursor to /pol/ anyway

The emails were from 201* not 2023.

we've seen several websites that do not break US law get evicted by registrars, ISPs, DDoS protection services, and other Internet landlords. 4chan miraculously survived multiple mass hysteria periods of the past decade without (iirc) any major disruptions. same as Russian 2ch -- miraculously untouched by Russia's rapid North Koreaization even though its /pol/ is overwhelmingly anti-regime.

The pirate bay is still up despite being taken down, is this now also a honeypot?

The Pirate Bay has had legal issues, been raided and taken down in the past. Has 4chan has any issues like this?

The UK fined it £520,000 but has no way to enforce it.

It got raided once way back.

Is the current pirate bay even still the original, or just a mirror or someone trying to mimic the old one?

Frankly EU India and China need to take a tougher stand here or see themselves getting harassed in future.

You may be unaware, but the EU, India, and China have also engaged in their own versions of economically-pressured internet presence takedowns of international activists and dissidents they label subversive. The degree differs according to leverage and their constitutional reasoning, but there is no spirit of opposition to this type of policy if that’s what you’re imagining.

Yep. People have had their homes raided in Germany for hosting online content about the Israeli genocide of Palestine. You don't get any warning - the police just show up and take all electronic devices, no exceptions.

People have had their homes raided in Germany and electronics seized for calling politicians dicks on Twitter or Facebook.

That's actually a crime though and everyone knows it's a crime.

The fact that it is a crime (if it is, indeed, a fact), only makes it even more fucked up.

It's just incredible how spiteful the federal government is towards its constituency

This is hardly unprecedented -- in fact, it looks like the US government has learned a thing or two from the anti-spam community. If you actually want to block e-mail or newsgroup spam at its source, you don't complain to the spammer themselves, but rather to their mail/news provider, and if that doesn't work, you escalate the issue to the upstream provider, the hosting company for the spammer's website, the registrar for the spammer's domain names, and so on. This is time-consuming but is sometimes effective. (Of course, dedicated spammers may then switch providers, or start employing distributed botnets of zombified residential devices, but knocking out their infrastructure at least temporarily does disrupt their operations for a time and drives up their cost of business to the point where they may reduce or even cease their activity.)

The anti-spam community can’t throw you in jail or fine you.

They're not being targeted for terrorist activity per se; they're being targeted for providing material assistance to terrorists.

Per the Treasury Department:

"The Autistici Inventati is an Italy-based far-left organization that provides a range of technological tools and services to violent left-wing extremist groups, including website hosting on foreign servers, encrypted email accounts, chat and video conferencing, and digital architecture associated with its “Noblogs” platform. Autistici Inventati identifies itself as an “anti-fascist” and “anti-militarist” organization opposed to capitalism and exclusively provides its services to vetted individuals, collectives, and groups it perceives to be aligned with its ideology, including to sanctioned terrorist organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been designated by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for its use of terrorist tactics leading to thousands of deaths in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria since its establishment in 1984.

"Autistici Inventati is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of, an act of terrorism." https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616/

Per the State Department: "The A/I Collective provides encrypted tools and services to numerous violent far-left extremist groups operating in the United States and around the world. Many of these groups have relied on the A/I Collective’s digital infrastructure to plot or incite violent attacks, recruit others to engage in criminal activity, publish official communiqués by U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, and disseminate maps of critical infrastructure, along with instructions for building improvised explosive and incendiary devices – all routed through a network of foreign servers intended to conceal criminal activity from law enforcement." They then go on to list the specifics. (https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...)

What about software projects (such as anonymous messengers) with political stances, who state the kinds of people their software is intended to help? Is that material assistance?

How is Signal not providing material assistance if someone alerts them that “terrorists” are now using their platform?

Sanctioning providers who host political groups, even if it’s extreme politics, is something new. It’s reminiscent of the Bush admin going after Indymedia, which was a huge violation of free speech and was obviously politically targeted. It’s extra ridiculous because we fund and supply the PKK (via their YPG affiliates), which makes this look like a fig leaf for the real goal of disrupting left politics. I don’t like the radical left, but I don’t think this is constitutionally allowed.

I feel like we need some bold lines drawn around this to make sure this power doesn’t get misused.

It’s all about mens rea. The law distinguishes between people who provide services to anyone, and people who intentionally market their service to criminals, even under coded language. In this case the provider didn’t just allegedly market themselves to them; they also actually excluded others.

Fair, I guess, although again I’m uncomfortable with how the PKK link appears to be used as an excuse for political suppression. I think in cases like this, it would be best to order the provider to discontinue services to the specific entity in question before resorting to sanctions, since they provided services to other political groups that were not listed as “terrorists”. I’m not sure if we have any information about whether this happened or not.

I suspect they had plenty of notice that they were on thin ice, and had they consulted attorneys, their attorneys would certainly have advised them to stop. I know I would have.

Criminal organizations tend not to care what their lawyers think around behaving well; they primarily seek them out for cover after they're already in trouble.

They may have, they may not have. Impossible to say unless and until we get more detail.

If they were warned and did not listen, that was irresponsible of them due to the impact on other organizations. If they weren’t warned, the government was irresponsibly severe given the impact on legal speech and political activity. Hopefully a journalist can dig into the details beyond press releases, as I doubt that either side will offer an unbiased view.

Everyone can use Gmail, Fastmail, Protonmail, Signal, WhatsApp, or many other providers free of charge provided they follow the providers' ToS. There's no shortage of service providers out there that are open to all. People can also operate their own servers if they so choose.

It's a politico-technological arms race. Governments make laws, we make technology that gets around the laws. Governments must increase their tyranny just to maintain the same level of control they had before. The result is either an uncontrollable population, or a totalitarian state.

I always hoped we'd find some sort of equilibrium. A state where governments learn to tolerate some crime because fully policing them would require crossing serious lines. It's becoming increasingly clear though that governments have no limits. There is no cost they are unwilling to pay in the name of maintaining their own power.

What sort of logic is this? I use I2P and no one sanctioned me or labeled me a terrorist.

I'd look at the Prairieland Detention Center Case to understand how broadly and aggressively this government is using "terrorism" to go after political opponents.

Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada got 30 years in prison for moving a box of magazines related to the protest. He wasn't even at the actual protest.

Several people got decades in jail because the FBI successfully convinced a jury that setting off fireworks near a detention center on the 4th of july was actually detonating bombs. And that because one idiot brought a gun and shot it, they are all guilty.

It's very much not far fetched that you as an I2P node could get hit with a terrorism charge if some political enemy ends up using your node. That's on the same level of moving pamphlets for a protest.

Several people got decades in jail because the FBI successfully convinced a jury that setting off fireworks near a detention center on the 4th of july was actually detonating bombs. And that because one idiot brought a gun and shot it, they are all guilty.

The USG has a somewhat different description of events, and appears to have had video that they showed a jury.

The defendants dressed in “black bloc”—dark clothing with head and face coverings that concealed their identities—designed to hide each individual’s identity but also to aid and abet those members engaged in illegal acts by making members indistinguishable from one another to law enforcement. Evidence introduced at trial revealed that the defendants brought eleven firearms, body armor, and eleven military-grade first aid kits with tourniquets and other items to treat gunshot wounds to the scene of the attack. [...] After ANTIFA Cell members arrived at the detention facility, they began shooting off and throwing fireworks (explosives) at the facility and vandalizing vehicles and a guard shack on Prairieland property. [...] Witnesses testified that an Alvarado police officer responded to the scene after correctional officers called 911. When the officer began issuing commands to defendant Nathan Baumann, Benjamin Song can be heard on police bodycam video yelling, “get to the rifles!” and then he opened fire on the officers, striking the Alvarado police officer in the neck as the unarmed correctional officers ducked and ran for cover.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-antifa-cell-members-no...

Note you can see in the pictures they were definitely not just setting off fireworks "near" the detention facility, but from the camera stills its obviously intended as harassment. And "some idiot" didn't bring a gun, they were all part of a group, they brought lots of guns, and he actually shot a police officer during their "protest." Note also that the USG explicitly uses the word "fireworks", contrary to your framing.

Yeah, sorry, if you a) join a group that states it wants to overthrow the USG b) go with a bunch of members to a federal facility as part of a violent protest c) set off fireworks, vandalize everything in reach, and d) shoot a cop, you are all going to prison, and that makes perfect sense.

and he actually shot a police officer during their "protest."

He did not, he shot at an officer and missed. He was also the only one of the protestors that shot.

You dispute that the officer was shot in the neck?

That's not what that Antifa terrorist did. All evidence was laid out in the court. You can read the official documents. Or you can keep reading pro-Antifa sites that whitewash what happened.

Oh. What was the charge against Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada and what exactly did he do to justify that charge and the 30 year sentence? Please link to what he did that was above and beyond what I described.

You claim it was more than just moving a box of magazines. I see no court documents or reporting saying it was anything more than that.

Transporting a box containing numerous Antifa (a designated domestic terrorist organization) materials, such as *insurrection planning*, anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-immigration enforcement documents and propaganda from Sanchez Estrada’s residence to a location in Denton, Texas, *intending to conceal the box’s contents and impair its availability for use in a federal grand jury and federal criminal proceeding*.

For correct information, visit: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-antifa-cell-members-no...

The picture everyone is missing is voting in November is how this gets resolved. The only way radical authoritarians survive on 30% approval ratings is apathy. Theres no reason to put up with this, the other side of a 70% electorate opposition is prison for the lawless incumbent

Even if Barack Obama himself was re-elected and the Democrats gained a 102% supermajority, does anybody seriously believe this sanction in particular would be reversed?

I believe there is a double standard here compared to section 230 of the communications act.

Platforms can't be held liable for speech on their platforms for a reason. For full disclosure: I feel ambivalent about that.

I don't know of an equivalent legal protection for I2P-like infrastructure.

You feel ambivalent about eg. HN not being held liable for some random user signing up and posting, say, a terroristic threat on it? You realise that if platforms/HN were legally punished for that, no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?