Re: Anonymous Surfing Providers

"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126546484.6263.189.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:51 +0000, J.AlfredPrufrock wrote:
>
> > > IF you accept it without question you are just plain gullible. Living
> > > proof that Barnum was right. I'm sorry if that tweaks you, it's not my
> > > intention, but it is the cold, hard truth.
> >
> > You seem to be claiming that you know, absolutely, positively, without
> > a doubt, that privacy.li (and every other commercial service) logs
> > everything their customers do.
>
> On the contrary, I'm stating for a fact that I have absolutely no way of
> knowing. Nor do you unless you are "them". That is the crux of my

That can be said for any of them, the fact that they're still around
and
haven't had a logging problem
gives you a pretty good idea of what they do.

> argument. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially when they're
> polar opposites of what I'm actually saying. :)
>
> > They *might*, but I believe they might not. Consider this:
>
> What you might "believe" is really irrelevant in context. If there is
> the possibility that something could be done to compromise your
> security, then you MUST assume that it is reality. To do otherwise is
> foolish and misguided.
>
> > 1. It's good business to fulfill your promises, and one case of a
customer
> > that is prosecuted as the result of logging would *destroy* their
business.
>
> It's good business to identify yourself to your client base, and not
> make provably false claims to prospects and clients alike. If a cursory

The record any of the anonymous providers as far as loggs should speak
for
itself,
and the business they run.

> examination of professional integrity is the litmus paper you want to
> use to test the value of these services, most of them are going to fail
> miserably.
>
> > 2. There is no true built in incentive to log, no legal requirement,
and
> > no cases of prosecution for "failure to log."
>
> Red herring. It assumes people don't snoop out of pure voyeurism, for
> one.

And it dosen't prove they do.

>
> Not to mention the fact that there *is* precedent that demonstrates
> legal pressure can be a good persuader. JAP, for instance.

JAP was backdoored from the start.

>
> > 3. They are attracting customers with the promise of no logs. Why
would
> > they lie? To get more customers, but then it would be easier to just
keep
> > your promises than to do *exactly* what you claim *not* to do.
>
> Actually, no, exactly the opposite is true. Running a service with no
> logs is akin to assembling a 40 story high rise from rocks and metal ore
> with no hammer or blueprints. There's much incentive TO lie in reality.
That's not true.
>
> Something else to consider is the fact that many of these services
> maintain no real control over the machines they're running on. That's
> left to the people who own the machines, who we know most definitely
> WILL log. The people fronting for the services, even if they're on the
> up and up, have nothing at all to say about it. And they can be
> completely cut out of the loop by law enforcement because of this.

The anon logg in is done by the anon service, even if?, some box got
logged,
they wouldn't know who they were logging, this was all covered in a
previous
post,
don't ask about it, I won't explain it all, look up the posts, I think
they're in this tree.

>
> > No logging is more than just a promise or a "policy." It is the
foundation
> > of some services.
>
> That foundation is weak to the point of nonexistence when examined under
> the microscope of some of the basic tenets of privacy, anonymity, and
> security.
You just don't want to understand that some on the net don't logg.
>
> > One should not accept such claims uncritically, and one should of course
> > realize that the services could be branches of the NSA or MIB, but there
is
> > no precedent for that, and (again) the first case down the pike that
shows
> > they are a government agency or in cahoots with such agencies and the
jig is
> > up.
> >
> > Is it not, therefore, *possible* that they actually do not log?
>
> Of course. Almost anything is "possible". It doesn't really matter. It's
> also "possible" they do. That alone is enough render claims of "can't be
> traced", or "totally anonymous" flatly false.
Discussed above.
>
> Add to that the probability that they do log as a matter of ease of
> administration, and the fact that logging may not even be under their
> control in a lot of cases, and what do you have?

A poster who is probably a nice guy who dosen't want to understand that
some
don't logg, lol!

>
> > > > > I don't keep logs, honest. Really I don't. Cross my heart and
> > > > > everything. Scouts honor.
> >
> > You might actually attract some customers, but when the shit hits the
fan
> > you would be "outed" as a "logger." Word spreads, and if you depended
on
> > that income you'd better find another way to make a living.
>
> In the mean time I'd have duped possibly thousands of customers out of
> their hard earned cash.
>
> And lets not forget that if I were "anonymous" as far as my customers
> were concerned I could merely set up shop under a different name and
> continue duping those same people. There's some evidence that this has
> actually occurred, and we know for a cold fact that at some of these
> services are operated by person(s) who have that ability.

That's why they're anonymous services, and they've kept their
customers.
>
> > > maggot filling? Are you sure Privacy.Li is legit, or are they really a
> > > front for the evil NWO overloards who are collecting data on everyone
> > > using they're services so they can "own" you when they make their
move.
> > > Are you safe? Or are you being duped? How do you know?

How do you know Cotse dosen't have a black box on they're server, and
aren't
duping their customers, and I only bring them up as an example only
becouse
you have in other posts,
I'm sure they don't have any problem like that, and they've have
satified
customers for years.

> >
> > Know? Isn't the track record evidence? Doesn't the non-existent
> > exception prove the rule?
>
> No. It does not. The basic premise you seem to be forgetting is that
> we're not dealing with used car salesmen. The rules are completely
> different. There simply is no room for second guessing, even if it's
> based on a preponderance of evidence. If the possibility of compromise
> exists, you must assume it is reality.
>
> > A conspiracy of the sort you are describing is as unlikely as the
>
> I was exaggerating of course, to drive home a point. A far more likely

I glad for you, living like your paranoid wouldn't be fun.

> scenario, but less colorful, would be an operator who logged because it
> fulfilled some sort of "James Bond" fantasy, or an operator who was
> being forced to keep detailed records as a matter of law.
>
> > It is more likely that the services are legit, reliable, and honest.
>
> We already know some of them are dishonest. They make demonstrably false
> claims like "can't be" and "100% secure" right from the beginning. So
> no, it's more likely they're not legit, reliable, and most obviously,
> honest.
Oh well.
>
> > Nefarious operators exist, but they make poor businessmen and women
> > when they offer services they don't provide, and they will be held
> > accountable at some level for their deviation from their promises.
>
> I disagree. I'd offer Bill Gates as evidence. His empire was built on a
> foundation of deceit, posturing, and outright lies. He's undeniably
> successful, and unaccountable in many ways because of that success.
>
> > TOR operators, and remailer operators, have no such accountability
> > and their income is actually lessened by their participation. I
>
> Strong evidence that they aren't persuaded by money to make their life
> easier. Unlike subscription service providers. :)
You just like TOR,
>
> The other side of the coin is that it really doesn't matter. Tor and the
> remailer network account for nefarious behavior by design.
>
> > believe that the likelihood is that many anonymous volunteers do
> > so for nefarious purposes, but not so with large scale commercial
> > enterprizes. Or they truly won't last.
>
> I would *almost* agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that I'm
> familiar with both the world of online business, and the world of online
> hobby. After > two decades of observation I've come to the opinion that
> with few exceptions the hobbyist is going to be more honest than the
> professional. Especially when we're discussing something like the
> esoteric philosophies behind privacy and anonymity, which can be easily
> represented to the neophyte in ways mislead them, just to gain their
> confidence and collect a paycheck.
>
> > > I've been around a really, really long time. In the clear and
anonymous
> > > alike. I've gotten to know some of the people who post here
personally,
Great!
> [...]
> > I've been around a while as well (2.6.2, Potato, Private Idaho...) and
>
> EDIT.COM... and later Qedit with it's fantastic macro capability and
> some little C snippits I cobbled together to handle things like removing
> excess quotes so messages could be verified. I remember the cold shiver
> I got up my spine when I first learned of the fate of penet.fi. How I
> thought back over the years of use I got out of it and wondered if there
> really were logs kept there.
>
> > I have seen snake oil in abundance. I'm not convinced that the services
> > provided by privacy.li or findnot.com are of that ilk.
To each his own.
>
> I'm not really *convinced* one way or the other. I see some strong
> indication that some of these services are bogus, but more importantly I
> understand that the issue of individual integrity is more or less
> irrelevant in context.
>
> > Did I mention I used to program with punch cards and later assembly
> > language?
>
> Did I mention I use to program with toggle switches, and still do
> program in assembly? :)
>
> > > > > But to be brutally honest it doesn't matter in the least who's
who, and
> > > > > I couldn't care less. That whole discussion detracts from the real
issue
> > > > > at hand, in part by the design of some of the people ho claim not
to
> > > > > log, but probably do anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe so, most have been around for a while and have
established
> > > > customers, they would have lost them by now, and would be gone with
> > > > problems if they didn't deliver on what they say.
> >
> > Yep. That's what I said. When business depends on promises that could
> > be disproven with a single exception, one would tend to keep their
promises.
>
> I did not say that, you did.
>
> > > How do we know that Privacy.Li (just for example because it's being
> > > discussed) has 2 customers, or 2000? Maybe it survives because it's
> > > duping just enough people to pay the tab. For that matter, how do we
> > > know it's not a government front that cares nothing at all about how
> > > much money it makes because we're all paying for it with tax dollars?
> >
> > Speaking of rumors, what do you call this paranoid "speculation?" I'd
> > call it rumor mongering. Case law speaks, bullshit walks. Even
>
> I'd call it questions designed to make you think about all the
> possibilities. Notice all the little squiggles with dots underneath
> them?
>
> As far as case law goes, we already know that the operators of one or
> more of these existing services have been prosecuted for a number of
> crimes. The only thing we're unsure of is whether they're under the same
> management, but there's moderately strong evidence to suggest they are.
That's not true, with respect to any of them. I've been reading
newsgroups
for quite
some time to.
>
> > personal experience, combined with the experience of others, is more
> > valuable than sheer speculation.
>
> And they're both trumped by the simple math of the thing.
>
> By the way, your news reader added a specific number of empty lines to
> the end of your reply, and more or less outed you as at least two other
> persons. Not that I really give a damn, but others will. You should be
> more careful. ;)

Didn't you say that you puppeted in a recent post, I suppose it's all
in fun
anyway? Don't read so much into things,
you'll spend to much time in newsgroups, lol By the way, I agree with
you
on teranews, they're a great provider and have binaries, this is all
just a
hobby for me, so I have the cheap account, but they have different ones
available if your interested, check it out. www.teranews.com
>
> --
> Hand crafted on Mon. Sep 12, 2005 at 11:49:08 AM
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
> Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
LOL, ^
This topic can go on and on, so I'm not going to post to it to much,
just
use what your comfortable with.
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Disincentives to logging for commercial anonymity services
    ... > that started an anonymity service solely to catch people. ... > even one case revealed that logs are kept. ... This assumes the business wasn't set up as a sham to begin with. ... Keeping logs when promises are made NOT to do so violates the privacy ...
    (alt.privacy)
  • Re: 5 new CDs for May
    ... one of those retailers who thinks that the customers are there ... If I dared to depend on you for business in order to survive, ... psychotic mind hell bent on a strange quest for anonymity in rmcr. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Jet uses Yellowfin for Location Intelligence
    ... Yellowfin Business Intelligence an entirely new dimension in Location ... Intelligence to its Call Tracker solution to extend the Marketing ... customers conducting multi-channel marketing campaigns ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Jet uses Yellowfin for Location Intelligence
    ... Yellowfin Business Intelligence an entirely new dimension in Location ... Intelligence to its Call Tracker solution to extend the Marketing ... customers conducting multi-channel marketing campaigns ...
    (comp.infosystems.gis)
  • Re: OT: Conventional Wisdom - Product Pricing
    ... customers, somewhat readily approachable. ... whole business model ... but the per-piece price is obviously much ... but the hidden costs tire them out over time and they end up ...
    (sci.electronics.design)