These people should have used an anonymous connection
Wolff Wehrkugel
8 Charged in Illegal Release of 'Star Wars'
Sep 27, 9:19 PM (ET)
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Eight Californians were charged Tuesday with
involvement in the illegal release of "Star Wars: Episode III -
Revenge of the Sith" before the movie appeared in theaters.
Court documents allege the piracy began with a "screener" copy
of the film at a post-production facility where one of the
defendants worked and ended with the movie being released online
the day before its worldwide release. "Screeners" are copies of
films made available for such purposes as reviewing or for use
by voters in industry awards programs.
The case is the latest attempt to crack down on movie piracy by
law enforcement and the film industry.
All are accused of misdemeanor copyright infringement charges
that carry up to one year in prison. One of the defendants also
faces a felony count of uploading the movie onto the Internet,
which carries a sentence as long as three years in prison if
convicted.
All eight defendants are scheduled to appear in federal court
next month.
traveler
They shouldn't have done what they did, they may not have even been caught
if they'd used an offshore anonymous connection.
ilove...@go4.it
The capitalist have all the influence to get these people arrested.
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
I think this would have happened regardless. I'm betting it wasn't even
the result of a posting trace, but rather the result of a keyed dvd with
a very limited and documented distribution list. So when it hit the
net, they read the key from it and were able to pinpoint where in their
distribution the leak happened. That's the way I'd do it if I was
trying to track a leak like that.
/steve
--
Free Privacy Resources
http://www.cotse.net/resources.html
starwars
Message-type: plaintext
In <1128059932.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> ilove...@go4.it wrote:
>It is sad to hear about things like this happening.
>The capitalist have all the influence to get these people arrested.
>
Yah, funny how they are about getting paid for their work and keeping
control over somthin that belongs to them ain't it?
amadeus
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
news:MPG.1da6a8493...@news.newsreader.com...
amadeus
<ilove...@go4.it> wrote in message
news:1128059932.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> It is sad to hear about things like this happening.
> The capitalist have all the influence to get these people arrested.
>
Stephen K. Gielda
nos...@nospam.org says...
> > I think this would have happened regardless.
> I'm sure you do, you log everything and can't provide anonymous internet.
>
>
It really grates your ass that we are very up front and honest about
what we can provide as a pay service, hmmm, I wonder why that is?
amadeus
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> In article <1128098594.ad3da5c41826acab61d868638a3a2626@teranews>,
> nos...@nospam.org says...
> > > I think this would have happened regardless.
> > I'm sure you do, you log everything and can't provide anonymous
internet.
> >
> >
>
> It really grates your ass that we are very up front and honest about
> what we can provide as a pay service, hmmm, I wonder why that is?
It dosen't bother me one little bit, as far as I know, no-one has ever said
you don't tell about the fact that you keep logs, however, It may bother
you?
Stephen K. Gielda
nos...@nospam.org says...
>
> "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1da766e6a...@news.newsreader.com...
> > In article <1128098594.ad3da5c41826acab61d868638a3a2626@teranews>,
> > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > > > I think this would have happened regardless.
> > > I'm sure you do, you log everything and can't provide anonymous
> internet.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It really grates your ass that we are very up front and honest about
> > what we can provide as a pay service, hmmm, I wonder why that is?
>
> It dosen't bother me one little bit, as far as I know, no-one has ever said
> you don't tell about the fact that you keep logs, however, It may bother
> you?
If honesty about such things bothered me, I'd just lie and claim no logs
rather than publish all the details about exactly what is available to
us and why right on the site. No, the honesty here bothers you for some
reason, not me. Is it because it makes it harder for you to lie?
amadeus
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> In article <1128114772.9ca96399d3d93967ca5870b58bfd9bef@teranews>,
> nos...@nospam.org says...
> >
> > "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1da766e6a...@news.newsreader.com...
> > > In article <1128098594.ad3da5c41826acab61d868638a3a2626@teranews>,
> > > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > > > > I think this would have happened regardless.
> > > > I'm sure you do, you log everything and can't provide anonymous
> > internet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It really grates your ass that we are very up front and honest about
> > > what we can provide as a pay service, hmmm, I wonder why that is?
> >
> > It dosen't bother me one little bit, as far as I know, no-one has ever
said
> > you don't tell about the fact that you keep logs, however, It may bother
> > you?
>
> If honesty about such things bothered me, I'd just lie and claim no logs
You can't.
> rather than publish all the details about exactly what is available to
> us and why right on the site. No, the honesty here bothers you for some
What you disclose to anyone about what you do is your business, I really
couldn't care less.
> reason, not me. Is it because it makes it harder for you to lie?
lol, your not that important
thunderbird
Stephen K. Gielda
>
> "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1da778038...@news.newsreader.com...
> > In article <1128114772.9ca96399d3d93967ca5870b58bfd9bef@teranews>,
> > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > >
> > > "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1da766e6a...@news.newsreader.com...
> > > > In article <1128098594.ad3da5c41826acab61d868638a3a2626@teranews>,
> > > > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > > > > > I think this would have happened regardless.
> > > > > I'm sure you do, you log everything and can't provide anonymous
> > > internet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It really grates your ass that we are very up front and honest about
> > > > what we can provide as a pay service, hmmm, I wonder why that is?
> > >
> > > It dosen't bother me one little bit, as far as I know, no-one has ever
> said
> > > you don't tell about the fact that you keep logs, however, It may bother
> > > you?
> >
> > If honesty about such things bothered me, I'd just lie and claim no logs
>
> You can't.
> > rather than publish all the details about exactly what is available to
> > us and why right on the site. No, the honesty here bothers you for some
>
> What you disclose to anyone about what you do is your business, I really
> couldn't care less.
Bullshit, because every chance you get you're yapping at my ankles
yipping "logger. Non anon. logger". It's no secret, it's all
published right here: https://www.cotse.net/tos.html But you still yap
every chance you get, that means that it matters to you, a great deal.
Now seeing as you run one of these "we have no logs" services, my guess
is our honesty causes you trouble and that is why you are so upset about
it.
braveheart
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
Give me a break, everyone who dosen't agree with you, or points out a fact
is either an owner of something or a puppet, the only one I see here with an
issue is YOU, and your attitude towards others who don't see it your
way. Go play puppet buddy, it's what you do best, what a joke.
Stephen K. Gielda
nos...@invalid.net says...
amadeus, there is a Mr kettle for you on line one. Just because you
play that way does not mean everyone does. Your arguments when anyone
even says the slightest thing you disagree with consist of the super
mature "Flush/Troll". Why? because it's the best you can do when
confronted with facts.
Fact number one: We are clear in what we provide.
Fact number two: that bugs the hell out of you amadeus.
Fact number three: It bugs you because what you claim you provide is
impossible and you are worried someone is going to see that.
It's impossible for a pay service to provide complete anonymity. Not
even Tor, which does not require a fee, does not require a login, and
does not use servers all owned by the same person/company can provide
bulletproof anonymity. They claim so. Yet, there you are, claiming
claiming your service can do just that.
You like to claim "no logs at all", that you don't have a clue who does
what on your servers. Yet, you can certainly update an account when a
new payment is made, terminate an account that hasn't been paid, control
how many times someone logs in, you can also control exactly who logs
in, after all they need an account, you can also shut off abusers, you
can throttle traffic, and more. Oh I know, "These are all done without
logs, that database of users IP's to traffic, isn't a log. The abuse we
control by sticking the users login name in their e-mail headers, tying
them to the mail for as long as it exists" ok, it's not a log, but the
end result is exactly the same, worse in some cases. You claim that
your servers are secure, yet if you really don't know at all what anyone
does on them then you cannot possibly be sure of that.
You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up to
you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance. How do you
know this? Because it's what they've done countless times, shadowcrew,
pharmacy stings, carder stings, DDoS sting, JAP, italy remailer (tho
here they just did it without the owner even knowing), and more.
You claim your servers in China (one of the most privacy and human
rights deficient countries that insists on controlling to the best they
can every bit of data in and out) and malaysia (no friend to personal
privacy and freedom there either) actually makes users much safer.
You lie straight to your users and get all bent out of shape if anyone
even dares challenge those claims. The fact that I did has you buzzing
around me like a gnat ever since, yet until recently I wasn't even
directly pointing fingers. However you seem to want me to do so, so now
I am.
You are pissed off as all hell that I dared point out the truth that a
paid service cannot be anon. That I dared even go and publish these
things on our site. That I dared to detail everything happening behind
the scenes. That I explained what logs were, what they contained, and
why they are needed. That I dared to make the distinction between a
privacy service (which a paid can only be) and a truly anonymous service
(which no paid for service can be). Even anonimizer changed their tune
there, but you still hold on to the hope that you'll be able to lure in
the ones who really don't know and when these things are brought out, it
threatens you so you strike back at me.
You don't like me pointing any of these things out, because it leaves
you speechless. Because it leaves you with no possible response but
"Troll/Flush". Because any "facts" you even tried to argue would have
holes poked in them making you look even worse. So stick with your
mature "Troll/Flush" while thinking it makes you look like the better
man. keep thinking that people cannot see all your socks for what they
are. Want to know a secret? People aren't stupid, you aren't fooling
them. And if you don't like me pointing fingers right at you when I
discuss these topics...then stop yapping at my heels.
thunderbird
/steve
Don't feed the ticked off troll, he's like an internet log, it never
goes away,
Regards,
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>> Bullshit, because every chance you get you're yapping at my ankles
>> yipping "logger. Non anon. logger". It's no secret, it's all
>> published right here: https://www.cotse.net/tos.html But you still yap
>> every chance you get, that means that it matters to you, a great deal.
>> Now seeing as you run one of these "we have no logs" services, my guess
>> is our honesty causes you trouble and that is why you are so upset about
>> it.
>
> Give me a break, everyone who dosen't agree with you, or points out a fact
> is either an owner of something or a puppet, the only one I see here with
I think if you read back about a year you'll find "amadeus" claiming to be
the owner of on of these services.
--
Hand crafted on September 30, 2005 at 20:59:15 -0400
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx
nemo_outis
Nice job of ripping the little dweeb a second nether aperture, Steve.
Not sure it's worth the effort though. Those who know would never take the
dweeb seriously; those who do take him seriously are too stupid to
understand your post. Accordingly, exposing such morons is rather like
swatting mosquitoes: momentarily satisfying but ultimately useless.
You'll see: he's too stupid to realize he's been cut to pieces and he (or
one of his hangers-on) will be back with more nonsense. You can almost
hear their annoying insect hum building now - where's the DEET?.
Regards,
amadeus
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
>
> Fact number two: that bugs the hell out of you amadeus.
lol
>
> Fact number three: It bugs you because what you claim you provide is
> impossible and you are worried someone is going to see that.
I don't claim to provide anything and your a TROLL
>
> It's impossible for a pay service to provide complete anonymity. Not
> even Tor, which does not require a fee, does not require a login, and
> does not use servers all owned by the same person/company can provide
> bulletproof anonymity. They claim so. Yet, there you are, claiming
> claiming your service can do just that.
I don't own any service TROLL/PUPPET
>
> You like to claim "no logs at all", that you don't have a clue who does
> what on your servers. Yet, you can certainly update an account when a
> new payment is made, terminate an account that hasn't been paid, control
> how many times someone logs in, you can also control exactly who logs
> in, after all they need an account, you can also shut off abusers,
The best description of (new) technology used and how it works I've seen is
at www.findnot.com
& www.metropipe.net
> can throttle traffic, and more. Oh I know, "These are all done without
> logs, that database of users IP's to traffic, isn't a log.
None of the other privacy companies claim such thing, troll
>The abuse we
> control by sticking the users login name in their e-mail headers,
Not true from anything I've read,
>You claim that
> your servers are secure, yet if you really don't know at all what anyone
> does on them then you cannot possibly be sure of that.
From what I've read that's what no logs means, these companies also have all
thier users out there with the same I.P. address
>
> You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up to
> you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
> and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
> Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
> are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
> through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
> you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance.
I wouldn't be surprised if this apply's to you, where you may be located.
> How do you
> know this? Because it's what they've done countless times, shadowcrew,
> pharmacy stings, carder stings, DDoS sting, JAP, italy remailer (tho
> here they just did it without the owner even knowing), and more.
>
> You claim your servers in China (one of the most privacy and human
> rights deficient countries that insists on controlling to the best they
> can every bit of data in and out) and malaysia (no friend to personal
> privacy and freedom there either) actually makes users much safer.
I've read in here many times that the log in is done via the privacy company
(where findnot & privacy.li
are concerned), even if something went wrong with the server, they wouldn't
know who they might be loging,
there isn't anything on the server wich fetches that could compromize the
users I.D.
>
> You lie straight to your users and get all bent out of shape if anyone
> even dares challenge those claims. The fact that I did has you buzzing
> around me like a gnat ever since, yet until recently I wasn't even
> directly pointing fingers. However you seem to want me to do so, so now
> I am.
I don't own any service TROLL, and the only one trolling here and getting
out of shape is
you, and your the one who's "lying" right now.
>
> You are pissed off as all hell that I dared point out the truth that a
> paid service cannot be anon. That I dared even go and publish these
> things on our site. That I dared to detail everything happening behind
> the scenes. That I explained what logs were, what they contained, and
> why they are needed. That I dared to make the distinction between a
> privacy service (which a paid can only be) and a truly anonymous service
> (which no paid for service can be). Even anonimizer changed their tune
> there, but you still hold on to the hope that you'll be able to
That you dared? No one ever asked you anything about the legal process
you have to follow.
>
> You don't like me pointing any of these things out, because it leaves
> you speechless. Because it leaves you with no possible response but
Leave me speechless? your a legend in your own mind.
> "Troll/Flush". Because any "facts" you even tried to argue would have
> holes poked in them making you look even worse. So stick with your
> mature "Troll/Flush"
O.K.,
>while thinking it makes you look like the better
> man. keep thinking that people cannot see all your socks for what they
> are. Want to know a secret? People aren't stupid, you aren't fooling
> them. And if you don't like me pointing fingers right at you when I
> discuss these topics...then stop yapping at my heels.
Start telling the truth, and stop playing puppet and you won't have to
play socks on the net buddy. I've got a secret for you, you aren't fooling
anybody, the info is out there for anyone to read.
>
> /steve
FLUSH
Jeffrey F. Bloss
> I'm not going to get invloved in your trolls,
If you're not going to get involved, why did you?
> say what you will, split
> or don't split hairs, the fact is that there are several anonymous
> internet privacy providers out there. I've looked around, and that's
> not to say there is anything wrong with what you provide.
There are ZERO anonymous internet providers out there. If you're subscribing
and connecting to their servers, you are not anonymous. Period. Even these
self professed "anonymity" providers know this, that's why they suggest you
sign up with, and access their systems, anonymously.
If you need to be anonymous to use their services, what the hell are you
paying them for? Can you answer that simple question "traveler", because
nobody else can. How can they claim to be anonymity providers, then turn
around and state with a straight face that you should access them through
Tor or such?
The two statements are glaring contradictions.
Most of these people don't even have any real control over the machines
they're running their services on. How the hell can they say there aren't
any logs? Oh wait..... they just claim THEY don't log. Right? When the
issue of what the people who actually administer their servers do
concerning logs comes up they flip back to the old "troll" and "puppet"
smoke screens, don't they?
Jump in any time with some honest answers if you have them. Or prove my
point by screeching "troll" and "puppet" some more. My IP and ID are out in
the clear. You can look me up in the phone book. The idiotic pupet/troll
shit ain't gonna cut it. Do YOU have the manhood to step up to the plate,
or are you going to once and for all prove exactly who you are by trying to
throw up those same old smoke screens?
And if all this bunches your panties, "traveler", I suggest you stick to
your original false claim, and stay the hell out of it.
--
Hand crafted on September 30, 2005 at 21:17:58 -0400
Stephen K. Gielda
nos...@nospam.org says...
>
> The best description of (new) technology used and how it works I've seen is
> at www.findnot.com
> & www.metropipe.net
..and neither of them are anonymous. I'm sure they claim it, one even
makes a standard vpn setup sound like it's this super anonymity
solution, got news, it's not. It's not anonymous and it's not new. I
liek findnot, I think they provide a good service, anonx too, but if
they are claiming they can provide guaranteed anonymity, I call bullshit
on that.
> > can throttle traffic, and more. Oh I know, "These are all done without
> > logs, that database of users IP's to traffic, isn't a log.
>
> None of the other privacy companies claim such thing, troll
>
> >The abuse we
> > control by sticking the users login name in their e-mail headers,
> Not true from anything I've read,
>
> >You claim that
> > your servers are secure, yet if you really don't know at all what anyone
> > does on them then you cannot possibly be sure of that.
>
> From what I've read that's what no logs means, these companies also have all
> thier users out there with the same I.P. address
So do we. They aren't anonymous, with us, or with any other company out
there, regardless of their claims.
> >
> > You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up to
> > you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
> > and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
> > Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
> > are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
> > through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
> > you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance.
> I wouldn't be surprised if this apply's to you, where you may be located.
It's happened all around the world, germany, italy, sweden, uk, US,
china. It's true here, it's true everywhere.
>
> > How do you
> > know this? Because it's what they've done countless times, shadowcrew,
> > pharmacy stings, carder stings, DDoS sting, JAP, italy remailer (tho
> > here they just did it without the owner even knowing), and more.
> >
> > You claim your servers in China (one of the most privacy and human
> > rights deficient countries that insists on controlling to the best they
> > can every bit of data in and out) and malaysia (no friend to personal
> > privacy and freedom there either) actually makes users much safer.
> I've read in here many times that the log in is done via the privacy company
> (where findnot & privacy.li
> are concerned), even if something went wrong with the server, they wouldn't
> know who they might be loging,
> there isn't anything on the server wich fetches that could compromize the
> users I.D.
Bullshit. You cannot be anonymous with a paid for service. You cannot
be anonymous with a real time traffic stream. So you are saying that
even though Tor admits it can't guarantee anonymity, and Tor is a far
cry tech wise from _any_ service, that these other services can do what
no one else can, even Tor. Right.
/steve
[Anon] Anon User
Message-type: plaintext
In <MPG.1da796b94...@news.newsreader.com> Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:
>In article <1128119407.e003c5aeb38ff27158817c8c4dae7c8b@teranews>,
>nos...@invalid.net says...
>>
>> "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1da77ff1c...@news.newsreader.com...
>> > In article <1128117092.e88bd527926390da8a8d749ceae84c51@teranews>,
>> > nos...@nospam.org says...
<snip>
>You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up to
>you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
>and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
>Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
>are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
>through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
>you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance. How do you
>know this? Because it's what they've done countless times, shadowcrew,
>pharmacy stings, carder stings, DDoS sting, JAP, italy remailer (tho
>here they just did it without the owner even knowing), and more.
<snip>
>/steve
>--
>Free Privacy Resources
>http://www.cotse.net/resources.html
>
Indiscriminate monitoring of internet traffic is unconstitutional
in the United States.
In particular, it violates the 4th amendment prohibition of "unreasonable
search and seizure." A subpeona must specify exactly what and/or who
the search is seeking.
Consequently, NSPs and ISPs cannot just be plugged into government
search engines in order to catch something that *might* happen
and *might* be illegal. That is why Carnivore has not been implemented.
If it has, then surely you could say if you have a "black box"
connected to a 3 letter agency on your premises. And, if so, then
there is not only no anonymity, there is no privacy. And
any service that promises privacy is as misleading as one that
promises anonymity.
A search warrant could be written to "catch" someone that does
something consistently perhaps (like logging onto another
commercial service with a particular username and login) I
imagine, but random seizure and monitoring of a service that
has a number of users would not pass constitutional muster.
Anon User
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
> I'm not going to get invloved in your trolls, say what you will, split
> or don't split hairs, the fact is that there are several anonymous
> internet privacy providers out there. I've looked around, and that's
> not to say there is anything wrong with what you provide.
That's untrue, there are services out there who "claim" to be anonymous,
but none that are. You cannot be anonymous via a paid for service by
itself and you cannot guarantee anonymity with a real time traffic
stream. This is even more true when only one person or company owns all
the servers involved.
You know, cotse is, for the most part, a one man show. That means I
don't just run it, I built it, I enhance it, I support it, and I know
everything about it. I didn't just hire someone to set up a proxy, I
built one. I didn't just download some remailer interface, I coded one
(even released it to the public). I didn't just have someone else set
up the servers and services, secure them, and develop the real time web
filtering, I did it. I didn't have someone else develop the completely
unique e-mail setup we offer, I built it.
When the webmail interface I installed wasn't what I wanted it to be, I
recoded it (kicking myself for that one, now I have to maintain a
completely separate dev branch). I didn't hire someone else to design
our datacenter and secure our lines, configure the firewalls, etc, I did
it. I didn't hire someone else to develop our vpn, I did it. I didn't
have someone else set up and configure our SSH tunneling, I did it, I
even coded a custom shell for it. I know this stuff inside and out. I
know what can and cannot be done in an anonymous fashion. I'm not just
some mouthpiece for a popular privacy service, I built it, I put myself
behind it, I did it all in a public, honest, and straightforward manner,
and they came. My next step is to use money above and beyond what it
costs to run everything to make a difference for privacy and fund a PAC.
I'm in it due to very strong beliefs, not money.
Now that may not be enough for you, but it's not only me saying the
things I say, the developers of Tor even make the same claims regarding
traffic analysis. Counterpane has made the same comments I have
regarding privacy and anonymity. Even freedom.net, which was the
closest provider of real anonymity out there admitted some of the same
weaknesses. There is no way these other services solved what no one
else can solve and are able to guarantee anonymity for a real time
traffic stream all by themselves, no way.
amadeus
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> In article <1128131534.4ca090973767f8443ca3a0a0805d225c@teranews>,
> nos...@nospam.org says...
> >
> > The best description of (new) technology used and how it works I've
seen is
> > at www.findnot.com
> > & www.metropipe.net
>
> ..and neither of them are anonymous. I'm sure they claim it, one even
> makes a standard vpn setup sound like it's this super anonymity
> solution, got news, it's not. It's not anonymous and it's not new. I
> liek findnot, I think they provide a good service, anonx too, but if
> they are claiming they can provide guaranteed anonymity, I call bullshit
> on that.
technology than you do,
not that it means you don't give a good service, you give what you give, as
do they.
> > > can throttle traffic, and more. Oh I know, "These are all done
without
> > > logs, that database of users IP's to traffic, isn't a log.
> >
> > None of the other privacy companies claim such thing, troll
> >
> > >The abuse we
> > > control by sticking the users login name in their e-mail headers,
> > Not true from anything I've read,
> >
> > >You claim that
> > > your servers are secure, yet if you really don't know at all what
anyone
> > > does on them then you cannot possibly be sure of that.
> >
> > From what I've read that's what no logs means, these companies also have
all
> > thier users out there with the same I.P. address
>
> So do we. They aren't anonymous, with us, or with any other company out
> there, regardless of their claims.
That's only your opinion
>
> > >
> > > You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up
to
> > > you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
> > > and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
> > > Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
> > > are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
> > > through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
> > > you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance.
> > I wouldn't be surprised if this apply's to you, where you may be
located.
>
> It's happened all around the world, germany, italy, sweden, uk, US,
> china. It's true here, it's true everywhere.
Maybe? Depends on the setup
> >
> > > How do you
> > > know this? Because it's what they've done countless times,
shadowcrew,
> > > pharmacy stings, carder stings, DDoS sting, JAP, italy remailer (tho
> > > here they just did it without the owner even knowing), and more.
> > >
> > > You claim your servers in China (one of the most privacy and human
> > > rights deficient countries that insists on controlling to the best
they
> > > can every bit of data in and out) and malaysia (no friend to personal
> > > privacy and freedom there either) actually makes users much safer.
> > I've read in here many times that the log in is done via the privacy
company
> > (where findnot & privacy.li
> > are concerned), even if something went wrong with the server, they
wouldn't
> > know who they might be loging,
> > there isn't anything on the server wich fetches that could compromize
the
> > users I.D.
>
> Bullshit. You cannot be anonymous with a paid for service. You cannot
> be anonymous with a real time traffic stream. So you are saying that
> even though Tor admits it can't guarantee anonymity, and Tor is a far
> cry tech wise from _any_ service, that these other services can do what
> no one else can, even Tor. Right.
That's why your a TROLL, I've said nothing, connecting to a paid service
is not like using tor, your not depending on free resources.
>
> /steve
> Free Privacy Resources
> http://www.cotse.net/resources.html
Go ahead and sock away with more questions that have already been answered
here,
after all, if it's not what you know, it can't be so right?
FLUSH/PUPPETS
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
> >There are ZERO anonymous internet providers out there. If you're subscribing
> >and connecting to their servers, you are not anonymous. Period. Even these
> >self professed "anonymity" providers know this, that's why they suggest you
> >sign up with, and access their systems, anonymously.
>
> same thing with someone else, you were given an answer, I think it may
> have been Gielda?
>
>
Yes it was me and the answer was because no service can provide real
anonymity by themselves for a real time traffic stream, regardless of
their claims. Which is exactly what we are saying in this thread as
well.
Stephen K. Gielda
nos...@nospam.org says...
>
> "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1da7c39d7...@news.newsreader.com...
> > In article <1128131534.4ca090973767f8443ca3a0a0805d225c@teranews>,
> > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > >
> > > The best description of (new) technology used and how it works I've
> seen is
> > > at www.findnot.com
> > > & www.metropipe.net
> >
> > ..and neither of them are anonymous. I'm sure they claim it, one even
> > makes a standard vpn setup sound like it's this super anonymity
> > solution, got news, it's not. It's not anonymous and it's not new. I
> > liek findnot, I think they provide a good service, anonx too, but if
> > they are claiming they can provide guaranteed anonymity, I call bullshit
> > on that.
> They don't seem to think it's "bullshit" and they use new and different
> technology than you do,
> not that it means you don't give a good service, you give what you give, as
> do they.
Then they are lying. They cannot provide guaranteed anonynimity.
>
> > > > can throttle traffic, and more. Oh I know, "These are all done
> without
> > > > logs, that database of users IP's to traffic, isn't a log.
> > >
> > > None of the other privacy companies claim such thing, troll
> > >
> > > >The abuse we
> > > > control by sticking the users login name in their e-mail headers,
> > > Not true from anything I've read,
> > >
> > > >You claim that
> > > > your servers are secure, yet if you really don't know at all what
> anyone
> > > > does on them then you cannot possibly be sure of that.
> > >
> > > From what I've read that's what no logs means, these companies also have
> all
> > > thier users out there with the same I.P. address
> >
> > So do we. They aren't anonymous, with us, or with any other company out
> > there, regardless of their claims.
>
> That's only your opinion
No, it's not, it's the opinion of every truly knowledgable person in the
field. What it's not the opinion of is marketing shills and those who
believe them.
> >
> > > >
> > > > You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up
> to
> > > > you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
> > > > and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
> > > > Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
> > > > are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
> > > > through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
> > > > you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance.
> > > I wouldn't be surprised if this apply's to you, where you may be
> located.
> >
> > It's happened all around the world, germany, italy, sweden, uk, US,
> > china. It's true here, it's true everywhere.
>
> Maybe? Depends on the setup
No it doesn't...reference JAP, which is more distributed than any paid
for service.
> > Bullshit. You cannot be anonymous with a paid for service. You cannot
> > be anonymous with a real time traffic stream. So you are saying that
> > even though Tor admits it can't guarantee anonymity, and Tor is a far
> > cry tech wise from _any_ service, that these other services can do what
> > no one else can, even Tor. Right.
> That's why your a TROLL, I've said nothing, connecting to a paid service
> is not like using tor, your not depending on free resources.
Yes, it's not like tor, Tor is closer to anonymous than any paid
service.
/steve
--
Stephen K. Gielda
> technology than you do
>
BTW, the fact that you believe a standard VPN is "new" technology, tells
us you are a kid and know absolutely nothing of what you speak. Go look
up VPN in google and see how "new" this technology is.
/steve
--
traveler
> In article <pjkrj1tcc46opdnkc...@4ax.com>,
> nor...@nym.alias.net says...
>> I'm not going to get invloved in your trolls, say what you will, split
>> or don't split hairs, the fact is that there are several anonymous
>> internet privacy providers out there. I've looked around, and that's
>> not to say there is anything wrong with what you provide.
>
> That's untrue, there are services out there who "claim" to be anonymous,
> but none that are. You cannot be anonymous via a paid for service by
> itself and you cannot guarantee anonymity with a real time traffic
> stream. This is even more true when only one person or company owns all
> the servers involved.
I think it's a difference of opinion, several out there dissagree with you.
> You know, cotse is, for the most part, a one man show. That means I
> don't just run it, I built it, I enhance it, I support it, and I know
> everything about it. I didn't just hire someone to set up a proxy, I
> built one. I didn't just download some remailer interface, I coded one
> (even released it to the public). I didn't just have someone else set
> up the servers and services, secure them, and develop the real time web
> filtering, I did it. I didn't have someone else develop the completely
> unique e-mail setup we offer, I built it.
I'm sure others have done allot of work on thier servers etc, as well. By
the way, I always liked your e-mail when I used cotse.
> When the webmail interface I installed wasn't what I wanted it to be, I
> recoded it (kicking myself for that one, now I have to maintain a
> completely separate dev branch). I didn't hire someone else to design
> our datacenter and secure our lines, configure the firewalls, etc, I did
> it. I didn't hire someone else to develop our vpn, I did it. I didn't
> have someone else set up and configure our SSH tunneling, I did it, I
> even coded a custom shell for it. I know this stuff inside and out. I
> know what can and cannot be done in an anonymous fashion. I'm not just
> some mouthpiece for a popular privacy service, I built it, I put myself
> behind it, I did it all in a public, honest, and straightforward manner,
> and they came. My next step is to use money above and beyond what it
> costs to run everything to make a difference for privacy and fund a PAC.
> I'm in it due to very strong beliefs, not money.
I imagine that's how others feel as well, they all seem to have thier own
unique way of doing what they do and try to make a difference in one way or
another. But all of you need money to pay the bills.
> Now that may not be enough for you, but it's not only me saying the
> things I say, the developers of Tor even make the same claims regarding
> traffic analysis. Counterpane has made the same comments I have
> regarding privacy and anonymity. Even freedom.net, which was the
> closest provider of real anonymity out there admitted some of the same
> weaknesses. There is no way these other services solved what no one
> else can solve and are able to guarantee anonymity for a real time
> traffic stream all by themselves, no way.
I think it boils down to anonymous to different degree's each one of you
has something good to offer.
>
> /steve
amadeus
"Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> In article <1128137153.442d1f052d1c9e27fe8a031c9293f067@teranews>,
> nos...@nospam.org says...
> >
> > "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1da7c39d7...@news.newsreader.com...
> > > In article <1128131534.4ca090973767f8443ca3a0a0805d225c@teranews>,
> > > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > > >
> > > > The best description of (new) technology used and how it works I've
> > seen is
> > > > at www.findnot.com
> > > > & www.metropipe.net
> > >
> > > ..and neither of them are anonymous. I'm sure they claim it, one even
> > > makes a standard vpn setup sound like it's this super anonymity
> > > solution, got news, it's not. It's not anonymous and it's not new. I
> > > liek findnot, I think they provide a good service, anonx too, but if
> > > they are claiming they can provide guaranteed anonymity, I call
bullshit
> > > on that.
> > They don't seem to think it's "bullshit" and they use new and different
> > technology than you do,
> > not that it means you don't give a good service, you give what you give,
as
> > do they.
>
> Then they are lying. They cannot provide guaranteed anonynimity.
>
> >
> > > > > can throttle traffic, and more. Oh I know, "These are all done
> > without
> > > > > logs, that database of users IP's to traffic, isn't a log.
> > > >
> > > > None of the other privacy companies claim such thing, troll
> > > >
> > > > >The abuse we
> > > > > control by sticking the users login name in their e-mail headers,
> > > > Not true from anything I've read,
> > > >
> > > > >You claim that
> > > > > your servers are secure, yet if you really don't know at all what
> > anyone
> > > > > does on them then you cannot possibly be sure of that.
> > > >
> > > > From what I've read that's what no logs means, these companies also
have
> > all
> > > > thier users out there with the same I.P. address
> > >
> > > So do we. They aren't anonymous, with us, or with any other company
out
> > > there, regardless of their claims.
> >
> > That's only your opinion
>
> No, it's not, it's the opinion of every truly knowledgable person in the
> field. What it's not the opinion of is marketing shills and those who
> believe them.
Your a legend,
O.K. Steve, there's nothing better out there.
amadeus
From: "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server
Sent: September 30, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: These people should have used an anonymous connection
> In article <1128137153.442d1f052d1c9e27fe8a031c9293f067@teranews>,
> nos...@nospam.org says...
> > they use new and different
> > technology than you do
> >
>
> BTW, the fact that you believe a standard VPN is "new" technology, tells
> us you are a kid and know absolutely nothing of what you speak. Go look
> up VPN in google and see how "new" this technology is.
Whatever you say, don't bring up anything about embeded encryption
(metropipe) directly
to the browser, no I.P. at all. Forget about temporary session I.D.'s with
a temporary internal IP
(findnot), that dosen't log and regenerates anew with every log in, and
that's only a couple of them.
So you should google and learn, and don't bother trolling any more, I'm sure
none of this makes any difference for you.
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:20:10 -0400, Stephen K. Gielda wrote:
>
> > In article <pjkrj1tcc46opdnkc...@4ax.com>,
> > nor...@nym.alias.net says...
> >> I'm not going to get invloved in your trolls, say what you will, split
> >> or don't split hairs, the fact is that there are several anonymous
> >> internet privacy providers out there. I've looked around, and that's
> >> not to say there is anything wrong with what you provide.
> >
> > That's untrue, there are services out there who "claim" to be anonymous,
> > but none that are. You cannot be anonymous via a paid for service by
> > itself and you cannot guarantee anonymity with a real time traffic
> > stream. This is even more true when only one person or company owns all
> > the servers involved.
>
> I think it's a difference of opinion, several out there dissagree with you.
The _only_ ones who claim that a single service can provide anonymity
are the services claiming it. That's it, that's all the people that
disagree, the ones selling a service claiming it can be done. Gee, I
wonder why they disagree, probably because they based their business on
claiming the impossible. What's even more telling, is if it is so
unique and solved what no other person or company has been able to
solve, where's the patent? They won't tell us exactly how they do it
because it's a trade secret, well trade secrets are best protected by
patents, where's the patent?
> I'm sure others have done allot of work on thier servers etc, as well. By
> the way, I always liked your e-mail when I used cotse.
Thank you.
> > Now that may not be enough for you, but it's not only me saying the
> > things I say, the developers of Tor even make the same claims regarding
> > traffic analysis. Counterpane has made the same comments I have
> > regarding privacy and anonymity. Even freedom.net, which was the
> > closest provider of real anonymity out there admitted some of the same
> > weaknesses. There is no way these other services solved what no one
> > else can solve and are able to guarantee anonymity for a real time
> > traffic stream all by themselves, no way.
>
> I think it boils down to anonymous to different degree's each one of you
> has something good to offer.
I never said they didn't. Every service out there offers a valuable
service and fills a niche. The more available services, the better for
the user, the better chance you have of being private and anonymous.
You can be anonymous using these services, even using us, but it
requires chaining services and taking other steps than using just one
service by itself. I'm not deriding what the companies actually
provide, I'm saying that what they claim to provide (anonymity by
themselves) is bullshit. I'm calling their marketing ploys to the
carpet, I'm not saying the service is bad.
Stephen K. Gielda
nos...@nospam.org says...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus>
> Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server
> Sent: September 30, 2005 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: These people should have used an anonymous connection
>
>
> > In article <1128137153.442d1f052d1c9e27fe8a031c9293f067@teranews>,
> > nos...@nospam.org says...
> > > they use new and different
> > > technology than you do
> > >
> >
> > BTW, the fact that you believe a standard VPN is "new" technology, tells
> > us you are a kid and know absolutely nothing of what you speak. Go look
> > up VPN in google and see how "new" this technology is.
> Whatever you say, don't bring up anything about embeded encryption
> (metropipe) directly
> to the browser, no I.P. at all. Forget about temporary session I.D.'s with
> a temporary internal IP
> (findnot), that dosen't log and regenerates anew with every log in, and
> that's only a couple of them.
Doesn't matter. You can encryption wrap, you can toss it back and forth
between servers, you can route it layer 3 only, it doesn't matter. If
the traffic is anywhere close to a real time stream then you can perform
traffic analysis. If you can perform traffic analysis then the service
cannot possibly guarantee anonymity. If they cannot do that, then they
should not be claiming that they can.
>
> So you should google and learn, and don't bother trolling any more, I'm sure
> none of this makes any difference for you.
It is you that needs to learn and realize you should doubt and stop
instantly believing the hype.
traveler
Ask them about patents, I don't think any of them are keeping any secrets,
it's all on thier web sites
>> I'm sure others have done allot of work on thier servers etc, as well. By
>> the way, I always liked your e-mail when I used cotse.
>
> Thank you.
>
>>> Now that may not be enough for you, but it's not only me saying the
>>> things I say, the developers of Tor even make the same claims regarding
>>> traffic analysis. Counterpane has made the same comments I have
>>> regarding privacy and anonymity. Even freedom.net, which was the
>>> closest provider of real anonymity out there admitted some of the same
>>> weaknesses. There is no way these other services solved what no one
>>> else can solve and are able to guarantee anonymity for a real time
>>> traffic stream all by themselves, no way.
>>
>> I think it boils down to anonymous to different degree's each one of you
>> has something good to offer.
>
> I never said they didn't. Every service out there offers a valuable
> service and fills a niche. The more available services, the better for
> the user, the better chance you have of being private and anonymous.
> You can be anonymous using these services, even using us, but it
> requires chaining services and taking other steps than using just one
> service by itself. I'm not deriding what the companies actually
> provide, I'm saying that what they claim to provide (anonymity by
> themselves) is bullshit. I'm calling their marketing ploys to the
> carpet, I'm not saying the service is bad.
I don't want to go on and on with this, but it looks like you can get
different levels of anonymity with different techniques and privacy
providers, ("bullshit") believe what you like.
> /steve
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
And none of them are for a method that guarantees the anonymity of a
real time traffic stream. Not one.
> > I never said they didn't. Every service out there offers a valuable
> > service and fills a niche. The more available services, the better for
> > the user, the better chance you have of being private and anonymous.
> > You can be anonymous using these services, even using us, but it
> > requires chaining services and taking other steps than using just one
> > service by itself. I'm not deriding what the companies actually
> > provide, I'm saying that what they claim to provide (anonymity by
> > themselves) is bullshit. I'm calling their marketing ploys to the
> > carpet, I'm not saying the service is bad.
>
> I don't want to go on and on with this, but it looks like you can get
> different levels of anonymity with different techniques and privacy
> providers, ("bullshit") believe what you like.
There aren't "different levels of anonymity". It's either anonymous or
it's not. Period. It's not "sort of anonymous", "anonymous if you pay
anon and access it via tor", "anonymous for this but not that",
"anonymous when you stand on your head while drinking a yahoo", or any
other condition. It's black and white, either something is anonymous or
it's not. And in the case of a real time traffic stream, it's not.
Now if they wanted to change their claims to say "You can be anonymous
with us if you are anonymous to us" or "You are not really anonymous to
us, but you can be as good as anonymous to this person" I'd have nothing
to say about it, because that's the truth. But to claim "Pay us $x and
you are anonymous through us using only us" is a false claim.
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>>There are ZERO anonymous internet providers out there. If you're
>>subscribing and connecting to their servers, you are not anonymous.
>>Period. Even these self professed "anonymity" providers know this, that's
>>why they suggest you sign up with, and access their systems, anonymously.
>
> As I recall, about two weeks ago when you were carrying on about this
If wanting people to understand the truth about snake oil peddlers is
"carrying on", then I'm guilty as charged. If, on the other hand, this is a
juvenile attempt to deflect attention away from yourself while evading the
real issues you can try again. That dog ain't gonna hunt this day slick.
Let's just wait and see which tact it really is, shall we...
> same thing with someone else, you were given an answer, I think it may
> have been Gielda?
We both agreed there's some benefits to having a centralized set of services
available to you, some ease of use, and that some superficial "good enough"
anonymity from your average net loon.
None of this has anything to do with the blatantly false claims made by many
of these self professed anonymity providers. That little tap dance don't
get it either. Sorry about your luck.
>>If you need to be anonymous to use their services, what the hell are you
>>paying them for? Can you answer that simple question "traveler", because
>>nobody else can. How can they claim to be anonymity providers, then turn
>>around and state with a straight face that you should access them through
>>Tor or such?
>
> Didn't Gielda answer this for you? I think it's him who recomends it
> for cotse, but I'm not sure.
Duck, evade, and dodge. Just like I expected. Your petty little "carrying
on" comment above has absolutely nothing at all to do with you disliking my
behavior, and everything to do with your fear of being further exposed. As
if you could look any worse.
You don't HAVE an answer, you're either too immature or too motivated to the
contrary to admit it, and you're either too stupid or too desperate to just
shut the hell up in SPITE of the fact that you laughably tried to claim the
moral high ground with your "won't get involved" lie.
>>The two statements are glaring contradictions.
>>
>>Most of these people don't even have any real control over the machines
>>they're running their services on. How the hell can they say there aren't
>>any logs? Oh wait..... they just claim THEY don't log. Right? When the
>>issue of what the people who actually administer their servers do
>>concerning logs comes up they flip back to the old "troll" and "puppet"
>>smoke screens, don't they?
>
> This one has been answered about a hundred times to
It hasn't been answered once. Not a single time. The best you've ever
provided was this idiotic claim that it's been answered.
>>Jump in any time with some honest answers if you have them. Or prove my
>>point by screeching "troll" and "puppet" some more. My IP and ID are out
>>in the clear. You can look me up in the phone book. The idiotic
>>pupet/troll shit ain't gonna cut it. Do YOU have the manhood to step up to
>>the plate, or are you going to once and for all prove exactly who you are
>>by trying to throw up those same old smoke screens?
>
> When a person gets an answer and then re-posts like he hasn't,like
Juvenile little kiddy games bore the shit outta me. Stand up like an adult
and prove me wrong, or prove once again you haven't got hair one on your
little baby marbles.
Comeon, cupcake. Here's your big chance to take out the loudmouth. Be the
hero and pummel me with all those concise and detailed answers. Here's the
questions again in brief, just to make it real easy for your cowardly ass:
1. If you have to be anonymous to sign up and use these so called
"anonymity" providers, how can they make the claim that by using them
you're anonymous?
2. If these providers have no physical control over their machines, how can
they know what's logged and what isn't?
>>And if all this bunches your panties, "traveler", I suggest you stick to
>>your original false claim, and stay the hell out of it.
>
> There are to many trolls in this newsgroup, and the name of this group
> is alt,privacy not anything else.
If you want to decrease the troll population by at *least* one, the door's
that way. ------->
--
Hand crafted on September 30, 2005 at 23:50:36 -0400
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>> ..and neither of them are anonymous. I'm sure they claim it, one even
>> makes a standard vpn setup sound like it's this super anonymity
>> solution, got news, it's not. It's not anonymous and it's not new. I
>> liek findnot, I think they provide a good service, anonx too, but if
>> they are claiming they can provide guaranteed anonymity, I call bullshit
>> on that.
> They don't seem to think it's "bullshit" and they use new and different
> technology than you do,
And what technology would that be exactly? What magical protocol hides your
IP and identity from the people you're connecting to directly, and handing
your contact information to so you can open and maintain an account?
And none of this "sign up and access anonymously" nonsense. You're claiming
they're ANONYMOUS, that they have some special way to achieve that, and now
you're being taken to task on those claims.
Are YOU going to be the one to finally stand up and justify yourself, or are
you going to prove yourself to be yet another flaccid little twaddle. Are
you all hot air, or is there some substance behind that vacant stare?
>> So do we. They aren't anonymous, with us, or with any other company out
>> there, regardless of their claims.
>
> That's only your opinion
That's a fact. You can't dispute it. Nobody with any common sense at all
would even try.
>> > > You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up
> to
>> > > you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have
>> > > logs" and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on
>> > > their way. Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a
>> > > gag order, we are seizing control of the servers and will be
>> > > monitoring all traffic
>> > > through them until we get who we are after". So instead of
>> > > protecting you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance.
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if this apply's to you, where you may be
> located.
>>
>> It's happened all around the world, germany, italy, sweden, uk, US,
>> china. It's true here, it's true everywhere.
>
> Maybe? Depends on the setup
No "maybe" about it. No matter where in the world you go there's a rule of
law. Most countries are worse than the US in fact. And if your servers are
in China as has been claimed, God help you AND your customers. You ALL are
probably owned already.
> That's why your a TROLL, I've said nothing, connecting to a paid service
> is not like using tor, your not depending on free resources.
Exactly. Your depending on a paid service that's already lied to you to gain
your confidence so they could bilk you out of a month's rent. They've
already made laughably impossible claims and played on your fears, now
you're telling us we should take their word that they don't log even when
they're too cowardly to come out of the closet and show their true
identity?
You may be that stupid. I'm certainly not. Hopefully not too many people
are. And hopefully the ones who are can be taught the error of their ways.
--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 00:33:45 -0400
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
They are not and we are not.
>
> >Now if they wanted to change their claims to say "You can be anonymous
> >with us if you are anonymous to us" or "You are not really anonymous to
> >us, but you can be as good as anonymous to this person" I'd have nothing
> >to say about it, because that's the truth. But to claim "Pay us $x and
> >you are anonymous through us using only us" is a false claim.
> >
> >/steve
>
> They say they are anonymous, and not a privacy shield, ie: not
> anonymous.
Yes they do and that is the issue, because they are not.
Ok, I can see by your latest tactics that you've reached the end of
being able to be rational, I bid you good day then.
thunderbird
providing gives more anonymity than you and your logs, that's a fact.
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>> That's untrue, there are services out there who "claim" to be anonymous,
>> but none that are. You cannot be anonymous via a paid for service by
>> itself and you cannot guarantee anonymity with a real time traffic
>> stream. This is even more true when only one person or company owns all
>> the servers involved.
>
> I think it's a difference of opinion, several out there dissagree with
> you.
No, it's the difference between fact and fantasy. The "several" that
disagree are likely not as many as they first appear, and have some vested
interest in disagreeing. Be it personal gain, or simply a matter of lacking
the maturity to stand up and admit they might be wrong.
>> You know, cotse is, for the most part, a one man show. That means I
>> don't just run it, I built it, I enhance it, I support it, and I know
>> everything about it. I didn't just hire someone to set up a proxy, I
>> built one. I didn't just download some remailer interface, I coded one
[...]
> I'm sure others have done allot of work on thier servers etc, as well. By
Some of the others have never even SEEN their servers, let alone built one.
They may have limited administrative access to a virtual host on someone
else's machine, they may even have a dedicated server, but they most
definitely don't have any real control over it or any real knowledge of
what's going on outside whatever logs they may or may not keep.
>> and they came. My next step is to use money above and beyond what it
>> costs to run everything to make a difference for privacy and fund a PAC.
>> I'm in it due to very strong beliefs, not money.
>
> I imagine that's how others feel as well, they all seem to have thier own
> unique way of doing what they do and try to make a difference in one way
If that were the case they wouldn't lie to your face just to get your
business. They wouldn't play on your fears, and try to fill your ears with
claims they can never make good on.
--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 01:24:13 -0400
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>> Yes, it's not like tor, Tor is closer to anonymous than any paid
>> service.
> O.K. Steve, there's nothing better out there.
That's the closest to being right about something you've been yet, sarcasm
aside. As far as I'm aware, Tor is the only onion routed SOCKS proxy in
existence. That makes it a highly flexable utility based on sound
theoretical anonymity. Something like JAP might be a bit more "mature" as
it's out of beta, and remailers might be more secure because of their
latency and longevity, but over all, Tor is the very best general anonymity
tool you can get. Eons beyond *ANYTHING* any subscription service can
offer, and it costs you absolutely nothing.
That may threaten you, but it is the truth.
--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 01:36:42 -0400
nob...@firenze.linux.it
Project mixminion server at firenze.linux.it. If you do not want to
receive anonymous messages, please contact antani-
ad...@firenze.linux.it. For more information about anonymity, see
https://remailer.firenze.linux.it or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext
Since when has that stopped anyone from doing it?
>In particular, it violates the 4th amendment prohibition of "unreasonable
>search and seizure." A subpeona must specify exactly what and/or who
>the search is seeking.
>
>Consequently, NSPs and ISPs cannot just be plugged into government
>search engines in order to catch something that *might* happen
>and *might* be illegal. That is why Carnivore has not been implemented.
So it is claimed and so many believe. The same has been said about Echelon.
>If it has, then surely you could say if you have a "black box"
>connected to a 3 letter agency on your premises. And, if so, then
>there is not only no anonymity, there is no privacy. And
>any service that promises privacy is as misleading as one that
>promises anonymity.
No, according to the homeland security act, patriot act and patriot act II,
if you've been required to bend over and give it up to a TLA, you are also
forbidden under severe penalty from telling ANYONE about it.
>A search warrant could be written to "catch" someone that does
>something consistently perhaps (like logging onto another
>commercial service with a particular username and login) I
>imagine, but random seizure and monitoring of a service that
>has a number of users would not pass constitutional muster.
I don't belive that the Patriot Act passes constitutional muster, but nonetheless
it is now the law of the land.
Wake up and smell the septic tank, Big Brother is alive and well and living
in Washington DC.
Stephen K. Gielda
sky...@safe-mail.net says...
> Let's say your right Gielda, even the worst of what these others are
> providing gives more anonymity than you and your logs, that's a fact.
>
>
Your main issue is that you cannot see anything I say as anything but
some kind of competition between services. It's not, it only is in your
eyes. But anyway, at least it's good to see you're finally beginning to
see the light, these services are not anonymous.
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>> BTW, the fact that you believe a standard VPN is "new" technology, tells
>> us you are a kid and know absolutely nothing of what you speak. Go look
>> up VPN in google and see how "new" this technology is.
> Whatever you say, don't bring up anything about embeded encryption
> (metropipe) directly to the browser, no I.P. at all.
You haven't a single clue, have you? You're tossing around buzzwords like
they're free, hoping you don't trip on your own stupidity.
"Embedded encryption directly to the browser" in deed!!
LOL!
I hate to break the news to ya', but Metropipe is a plain vanilla SSH
server. Nothing at all fancy or mysterious about it. You can even use PuTTy
or BitVise. They have setup instructions for them on their "Alternative
Tunneler Software" page:
http://support.metropipe.net/wiki/index.php/Alternative_Tunneler_Software
>Forget about temporary session I.D.'s with
>a temporary internal IP
>(findnot), that dosen't log and regenerates anew with every log in, and
>that's only a couple of them.
Findnot's "magic" is nothing but Windows XP native VPN ability. Go to Start
> Control Panel > Network Connections > Virtual Private Network Connection.
Name the connection and click next and guess what you're looking at. You
got it slick, a little box where you enter a standard Internet host name or
IP number.
But it doesn't use IP numbers, right?
Are you truly that oblivious yourself, or are you just pretending to be so
you can shill for your favorite services? Or maybe you're just throwing up
smoke screens trying to hide teh fact that there really ARE honest privacy
providers out there because you have a deeper interest in one of the
shyster services?
I'd go with "shill". Nobody want's to look that stupid, and admitting you're
an owner would make your business look real bad.
--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 01:45:19 -0400
Stephen K. Gielda
nor...@nym.alias.net says...
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 01:14:16 -0400, Stephen K. Gielda
>
> >Ok, I can see by your latest tactics that you've reached the end of
> >being able to be rational, I bid you good day then.
>
> either a puppet or irrational or whatever, O.K. bye bye.
Yes, when you end up at "is so" "is not" "is so" it's no longer
rational. Please feel free to post another "is so" after this if it
makes you feel better.
Jeffrey F. Bloss
> MEGA TROLL
And there you have it folks. When backed into the corner to the point these
fartstains on the underwear of the privacy community can't come up with any
answers that might even SOUND credible, they quote entire messages and add
"TROLL" to the bottom.
Screw that. Steve claims these cunts have value, and I use to agree. No
more. Anyone who lies, steals, and then acts like this can't be trusted
with even casual privacy. They'll sell you out in a heartbeat because they
havent got the balls to stand up for anything but their own wallets.
I was trying to be nice about it, but they're total scum. Why bother.
--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 02:21:16 -0400
Stephen K. Gielda
rema...@invalid.com says...
> -----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
> Message-type: plaintext
>
> >In article <1128119407.e003c5aeb38ff27158817c8c4dae7c8b@teranews>,
> >nos...@invalid.net says...
> >>
> >> "Stephen K. Gielda" <st...@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1da77ff1c...@news.newsreader.com...
> >> > In article <1128117092.e88bd527926390da8a8d749ceae84c51@teranews>,
> >> > nos...@nospam.org says...
> <snip>
>
> >You claim that saying "no logs" means that if the government comes up to
> >you with a subpoena you can just tell them "sorry, we don't have logs"
> >and they'll say "oh, ok, so sorry to bother you" and be on their way.
> >Wrong, instead they'll say "Ok, here is a subpoena and a gag order, we
> >are seizing control of the servers and will be monitoring all traffic
> >through them until we get who we are after". So instead of protecting
> >you, or anyone else, now every user is under surveillance. How do you
> >know this? Because it's what they've done countless times, shadowcrew,
> >pharmacy stings, carder stings, DDoS sting, JAP, italy remailer (tho
> >here they just did it without the owner even knowing), and more.
>
> <snip>
>
> in the United States.
>
> search and seizure." A subpeona must specify exactly what and/or who
> the search is seeking.
>
> Consequently, NSPs and ISPs cannot just be plugged into government
> search engines in order to catch something that *might* happen
> and *might* be illegal. That is why Carnivore has not been implemented.
>
> connected to a 3 letter agency on your premises. And, if so, then
> there is not only no anonymity, there is no privacy. And
> any service that promises privacy is as misleading as one that
> promises anonymity.
>
> something consistently perhaps (like logging onto another
> commercial service with a particular username and login) I
> imagine, but random seizure and monitoring of a service that
> has a number of users would not pass constitutional muster.
True in the legal sense and one of the arguments for the benefits of
being under laws that actually protect privacy somewhat. That said,
however, in the practical application that isn't how it ends up. The
subpoena would specify the target and though they couldn't prosecute as
a result of what they see off that target, they likely would note it and
find others ways to get at it.
For example if they filed a subpoena targeting middle east and money
laundering specifically, then in the course of that investigation ran
across someone heavily into child porn and actively exploiting children
in his local kindergarten class because he's the teacher, they aren't
going to ignore that and forget it. They'll note it and find some other
way to nail him. So yes, they can't trawl, but all they need is one
working subpoena to "satisfy their curiosity" about other potential
targets then go after those in a different manner.
Of course, none of this accounts for the fact that it is all likely
covertly monitored via Echelon anyway. The advantage privacy still has
somewhat under this scenario is data overload.
braveheart
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbl...@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8485828.L...@wrench.yi.org...
Don't feed the troll
Jeffrey F. Bloss
>>Comeon, cupcake. Here's your big chance to take out the loudmouth. Be the
>>hero and pummel me with all those concise and detailed answers. Here's the
>>questions again in brief, just to make it real easy for your cowardly ass:
>
> Why should anyone answer your questions, becouse your calling them
> names?
Like I said, you can't. You don't have any answers that wouldn't leave the
whole room rolling on the floor laughing at you, so you're reduced to these
feeble attempts at evasion, and ridiculous claims that they were answered
"before".
You're a snake and a liar. One message ID with a credible answer would be
all it takes. A single *real* answer and it all goes away. But you can't
even muster that much because such an animal doesn't exist.
Once again...
1. If it's necessary to to sign up with, and connect to, an "anonymity"
provider through anonymous means, how can they truthfull make any claim
that they will make you anonymous themselves?
2. If a provider has no physical control over the machines their servers run
on, how can they know what's logged and what isn't? How could they even
know that a warrant wasn't served against the people who DO control the
machines, and EVERYTHING is being logged/recorded/archived? Traffic and
all?
Are you going to grow a pair, or do I just keep slapping you across the face
until one of us gets tired?
> By the way, why are you so interested in asking these questions again
Because you show no interest in answering them, and that's a convenient way
of pointing out what snakes and liars some of you "anonymity" providers
are. Every time you duck, evade, and hide behind your childish little
"TROLL" accusations, I get the chance to shine a glaring bright light on
you. And that, my unworthy opponent, benefits the entire privacy community.
You truly are your own worst enemy. I just happen to be hanging around
commenting on it.
--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 03:28:21 -0400
Ari Silversteinn
> I'm not just
> some mouthpiece for a popular privacy service, I built it, I put myself
> behind it, I did it all in a public
http://www.summerwindproductions.com/Media/encore/my%20way%20flyer.jpg
--
Drop the alphabet for email
Stephen K. Gielda
abcarisi...@yahoo.comxyz says...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:20:10 -0400, Stephen K. Gielda wrote:
>
> > I'm not just
> > some mouthpiece for a popular privacy service, I built it, I put myself
> > behind it, I did it all in a public
>
> http://www.summerwindproductions.com/Media/encore/my%20way%20flyer.jpg
>
Lol, well I did :P
Thomas J. Boschloo
Stephen K. Gielda wrote:
<snip>
> Bullshit. You cannot be anonymous with a paid for service. You cannot
> be anonymous with a real time traffic stream. So you are saying that
> even though Tor admits it can't guarantee anonymity, and Tor is a far
> cry tech wise from _any_ service, that these other services can do what
> no one else can, even Tor. Right.
They are trade secrets that cannot be disclosed to the general public.
But seriously, what I miss in this discussion is: What paid for anon
servers are saying they are not keeping logs? And what is amadeus'
relation to this company?
That amadeus is a total moron is clear to me. I just want to know the
other names involved ;-)
tia,
Thomas
- --
Gothika: "How can you trust someone who thinks you are crazy"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQ2aS/AEP2l8iXKAJAQE/VAMfQjrT02PaoLMFoHr1Aeo1JKFif4YfUTXA
TWX8gOEJ/yfoEO7XHkrwqvAtnpX2E9TyKQImNw3YfUFryjYSK4BU3CY+dhLyCG9v
VSlnwR3UCCPylLHQx79xHxn/YZSyGfx4EAdCcw==
=GYtw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----