Anonymous Servers - Anonymous in Newsgroups?

Author

Anonymous in Newsgroups?

SBN

2006-05-20, 7:12 pm

Thinking of using sn anonymous server -- probably findnot. I have a
present news server account with Giganews to access newsgroups. It is
a very good service but I have to use UN and PW which can lead to my
personal info such as name, address and cc info. So why use an anon
server? I realize it can get past my ISP, but once I access Giganews
I must reveal personal info to access newsgroups. It appears that at
that point all anonymity is gone. I would compare it to arriving
anonymously at a website only to need to give personal info to
proceed. I hope I am wrong on this. Thank you for any help.

MarkThompson

2006-05-20, 7:12 pm

The answer would be to close your Giganews account that you have
identifiable information with. Then, open a new account from a public
hotspot using an anonymous credit card (best bet would be a Visa gift
card which you can pick up at many malls) and pay CASH for the card.
You then sign-up using the Visa card using whatever name, address,
phone number (not correct info obviously). For email, use a throwaway
account, one-time use Yahoo account, or an email account you ONLY
access through FindNot or a public hotspot. Then, everytime you sign-in
to Giganews, you are signing-in through FindNot and the UserName and
PassWord will match the shadow information given when you sign-up.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 7:12 am

SBN wrote:

> Thinking of using sn anonymous server -- probably findnot.

<snip>

You screwed up already. Findnot is NOT anonymous. They lie to you and
claim they are so you'll fork over your paycheck, but ask them these
questions:

1) How can you claim to make people anonymous when every security
professional on the planet says a subscription service can never be
anonymous?

2) You tell people to "sign up anonymously". If you are an anonymous
service, why would users have to be anonymous before they do business with
you?

3) If you have to be anonymous to do business with you, what in the HELL
are you being paid for?

You can bet your last nickel some "anonymity service" puppet will chime in
at this point and call me names.

You can also bet your last nickel not a single ONE of them has the balls
to actually answer ANY of the above questions, and more.

If you want to be anonymous, use Tor or anonymous remailers. If you want
to hide your IP address from net kooks, subscribe to Cotse. If you want to
be lied to and pay way too much for the honor, subscribe to findsnot, or
its parent ripoff, privacy.LIE.

Josh Bettenheimer

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

Interesting, I didn't know Privacy.lie & Findsnot were one in the same.
If so, then I would certainly stay away from both.

My first thought when reading your post is, another monkey that thinks
everything on the web should be for free. Nevermind the costs to the
site operators involved ie.. Development, bandwidth, servers, hosting
and just the time involved to maintain it all. Nevermind all that just
give it away for FREE! yeah, right.

You also state "Subscribe to Cotse". I can't knock Cotse, I like them
but, what makes it OK to signup "subscribe" to one privacy service but
not another? If a person signs up for a privacy service using E-Gold or
a disposable pre-paid Visa card, then always connects using free
wireless hotspots, then they can in fact be anonymous.

It seems to me the problem here is, not everyone unlike yourself
naturally is a "know-it-all". You see, "Know-it-alls" know it all, so
they don't need to rely on a privacy service. Luckily however, for the
privacy services the "don't-know-it-alls" far outnumber the
"know-it-alls" and don't mind spending a few dollars to get a jump start
in the right direction. Gee, did I just cost someone their last nickel?

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> SBN wrote:
>
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> You screwed up already. Findnot is NOT anonymous. They lie to you and
> claim they are so you'll fork over your paycheck, but ask them these
> questions:
>
> 1) How can you claim to make people anonymous when every security
> professional on the planet says a subscription service can never be
> anonymous?
>
> 2) You tell people to "sign up anonymously". If you are an anonymous
> service, why would users have to be anonymous before they do business with
> you?
>
> 3) If you have to be anonymous to do business with you, what in the HELL
> are you being paid for?
>
> You can bet your last nickel some "anonymity service" puppet will chime in
> at this point and call me names.
>
> You can also bet your last nickel not a single ONE of them has the balls
> to actually answer ANY of the above questions, and more.
>
> If you want to be anonymous, use Tor or anonymous remailers. If you want
> to hide your IP address from net kooks, subscribe to Cotse. If you want to
> be lied to and pay way too much for the honor, subscribe to findsnot, or
> its parent ripoff, privacy.LIE.
>

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

Anyone who would use "Gmail" has zero credibility in a security/privacy
newsgroup.

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Josh Bettenheimer <JBSkater@gmail.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Interesting, I didn't know Privacy.lie & Findsnot were one in the same.
>If so, then I would certainly stay away from both.
>
>My first thought when reading your post is, another monkey that thinks
>everything on the web should be for free. Nevermind the costs to the
>site operators involved ie.. Development, bandwidth, servers, hosting
>and just the time involved to maintain it all. Nevermind all that just
>give it away for FREE! yeah, right.
>
>You also state "Subscribe to Cotse". I can't knock Cotse, I like them
>but, what makes it OK to signup "subscribe" to one privacy service but
>not another? If a person signs up for a privacy service using E-Gold or
>a disposable pre-paid Visa card, then always connects using free
>wireless hotspots, then they can in fact be anonymous.
>
>It seems to me the problem here is, not everyone unlike yourself
>naturally is a "know-it-all". You see, "Know-it-alls" know it all, so
>they don't need to rely on a privacy service. Luckily however, for the
>privacy services the "don't-know-it-alls" far outnumber the
>"know-it-alls" and don't mind spending a few dollars to get a jump start
>in the right direction. Gee, did I just cost someone their last nickel?

>
>
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>

Josh Bettenheimer

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

I wouldn't know. I don't use email.

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> Anyone who would use "Gmail" has zero credibility in a security/privacy
> newsgroup.
>
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, Josh Bettenheimer <JBSkater@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

Josh Bettenheimer wrote:

> Interesting, I didn't know Privacy.lie & Findsnot were one in the same. If
> so, then I would certainly stay away from both.

Findsnot is a "sister" service, according to the admin of privacy.LIE

> My first thought when reading your post is, another monkey that thinks
> everything on the web should be for free. Nevermind the costs to the site

Where you got that idea is beyond reason. I even suggested a pay-for
service to satisfy a potential need.

But since you brought it up, the very best anonymity you can get happens
to be free, and being free is certainly one way to avoid demolishing your
anonymity by leaving a paper trail.

> operators involved ie.. Development, bandwidth, servers, hosting and
> just the time involved to maintain it all. Nevermind all that just give
> it away for FREE! yeah, right.
>
> You also state "Subscribe to Cotse". I can't knock Cotse, I like them
> but, what makes it OK to signup "subscribe" to one privacy service but
> not another?

Honesty. Integrity. Little things like that. The ONLY thing you're really
paying these people for is their word they'll deliver what they claim they
will. Why anyone would trust someone who lies about their capabilities to
run the rest of their affairs completely above board is also beyond reason.

> If a person signs up for a privacy service using E-Gold or

E-Gold requires a registration. They will know your IP address. So will
the privacy service.

> a disposable pre-paid Visa card, then always connects using free
> wireless hotspots, then they can in fact be anonymous.

WiFi hotspots are NOT anonymous. Sorry. You've been lied to. There's a
traceable route back to a physical location, and that location knows a
considerable amount of of information about you. Like your MAC address. A
serial number that's unique to your machine. And even without this
knowledge the fact that you are uniquely identifiable and traceable means
that by DEFINITION you are not anonymous. Using a WiFi hotspot also means
you've become part of a local network, and are subject to the privacy and
security problems that come with that. Not to mention the fact the WiFi
hotspots are some of the most monitored connections in the world. You
can't even guarantee a given hotspot isn't in fact a TLA honeypot. In
truly anonymous situations it wouldn't matter.

What you've accomplished by using hotspots, prepaid VISA cards, E-Gold and
some privacy service is setting up a very elaborate, expensive, and
cumbersome privacy scheme. With some inherent flaws in even that privacy.
You'd be better served by subscribing to a legitimate privacy service
directly. At least a legitimate privacy service is a somewhat known
variable. A WiFi hotspot certainly is not.

OTOH, you can use Tor and anonymous remailers and achieve REAL anonymity,
the best you're likely to ever get over a public network that's designed
to be as non-anonymous as it it, from the privacy of your own home.

> It seems to me the problem here is, not everyone unlike yourself
> naturally is a "know-it-all". You see, "Know-it-alls" know it all, so
> they don't need to rely on a privacy service. Luckily however, for the
> privacy services the "don't-know-it-alls" far outnumber the
> "know-it-alls" and don't mind spending a few dollars to get a jump start
> in the right direction. Gee, did I just cost someone their last nickel?

It's not about knowing it all, it's about actually achieving your goals.
If you want to be anonymous there is NO privacy service and NO hotspot
that can give you that. If you just need some privacy, you have many more
options.

It really is just that simple.

MarkThompson

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

I won't go into your long rant except to say that Privacy.li and
FindNot are NOT the same people.

MarkThompson

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

And you don't see the irony? I don't "use" Gmail except to post on
Usenet in a way that hides everything I do, and all from a simple web
interface. You go through your remailers, I go through a proxy chain to
Google Groups, using ALL fake information. I know it's not politically
correct to James Bond wannabes like you, but I do it just to piss snobs
like you off! Botto line: I don't know where YOU are and you don't know
where I am. Neither, by the way, does Google.

MarkThompson

2006-05-21, 1:12 pm

All you've done is show YOUR ignorance. A public wifi hotspot can be
VERY anonymous. Not to mention, open wifi connections (that number in
the tens of thousands in my city). The MAC address is NOT a "serial
number" to your computer. Nobody can track you down through your MAC
address. After the fact, once someone has your computer, they can make
the connection, but at that point.......oh......and are you not aware
it is very simple to SPOOF your MAC address? Doing that, the broadcast
MAC ** would NOT ** match up with your computer. You act like you know
it all, and dole out incorrect information. Several things you said
about wifi were ridiculous but I'll stop here. Oh.....FindNot and
Privacy.li are NOT linked in any way. The admin of privacy.li never
said that. Show us.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

troll

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

On Sun, 21 May 2006, Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>In article <f17a6ab7c80161d0a6e28767d2a1f679@pseudo.borked.net>
>Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>Anyone who would quote and entire post to whine is a loser.

I believe you mean "quote [an] entire post" you bitchy cunt. What's that
matter, is Daddy not pounding your preteen pussy hard enough?

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

MarkThompson wrote:

> And you don't see the irony? I don't "use" Gmail except to post on Usenet
> in a way that hides everything I do, and all from a simple web interface.
> You go through your remailers, I go through a proxy chain to Google

I hope you don't mean so called "anonymous proxies", most of which are
honeypots and TLA surveillance outposts. That would REALLY make your
credibility crash and burn.

> Groups, using ALL fake information. I know it's not politically correct to
> James Bond wannabes like you, but I do it just to piss snobs like you off!

You're not pisssing anyone off. You're quite amusing actually.

> Botto line: I don't know where YOU are and you don't know where I am.
> Neither, by the way, does Google.

But "Google" has a very well defined way to walk back along the path
you're taking to get there. The remailer network eliminates that path
ENTIRELY. Thus we are anonymous, and you are not.

Sorry about your luck.

traveler 66

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

"Josh Bettenheimer" <JBSkater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MdydnaHZtdpU_O3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
> Interesting, I didn't know Privacy.lie & Findsnot were one in the same.
> If so, then I would certainly stay away from both.

They aren't, I use findnot, post your source with headers and dates please,
I'd like to see where
your getting your info from, unless your trolling?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> My first thought when reading your post is, another monkey that thinks
> everything on the web should be for free. Nevermind the costs to the
> site operators involved ie.. Development, bandwidth, servers, hosting
> and just the time involved to maintain it all. Nevermind all that just
> give it away for FREE! yeah, right.
>
> You also state "Subscribe to Cotse". I can't knock Cotse, I like them
> but, what makes it OK to signup "subscribe" to one privacy service but
> not another? If a person signs up for a privacy service using E-Gold or
> a disposable pre-paid Visa card, then always connects using free
> wireless hotspots, then they can in fact be anonymous.
> It seems to me the problem here is, not everyone unlike yourself
> naturally is a "know-it-all". You see, "Know-it-alls" know it all, so
> they don't need to rely on a privacy service. Luckily however, for the
> privacy services the "don't-know-it-alls" far outnumber the
> "know-it-alls" and don't mind spending a few dollars to get a jump start
> in the right direction. Gee, did I just cost someone their last nickel?

>
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>

That's probably true for the 5% out there using the internet who are of
interest to those who count.
[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]

If you don't they will have your real name to give out if they have to, logs
are the important thing
for 95% of surfers on the internet, but you know that you've asked these
questions before and
gotten answers.
[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]

Just my opinion as a satisfied user, I hope you don't mind.
[vbcol=seagreen]

I like Tor through the privacy companies that offer it through their tunnels
automatically.
[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]

Troll and puppet.

Non scrivetemi

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

In article <e75f613cdedc382536f82de85aef5f23@pseudo.borked.net>
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
> I believe you mean "quote [an] entire post"

Typos happen, loser.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

traveler 66 wrote:

>
> "Josh Bettenheimer" <JBSkater@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MdydnaHZtdpU_O3ZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
>
> They aren't, I use findnot,

"I'm not just a member of the hair club for men, I'm the president."

LOL!

> post your source with headers and dates
> please, I'd like to see where
> your getting your info from, unless your trolling?

No need. We both remember what your assminus puppet said. Someone outed
you, and it was one of the few things you couldn't manage to lie your way
out of.

>
> That's probably true for the 5% out there using the internet who are of
> interest to those who count.

That's true of EVERYONE you lying scumbag. Some people might not NEED to
be anonymous, but the ones that do can't get it at Findsnot/privacy.LIE or
any OTHER privacy service. Some of them tell you this up front. Other like
you lie their asses off. And you in particular make yourself look like a
total asstard while you're doing it.

> with
>
> If you don't they will have your real name to give out if they have to,
> logs are the important thing

You mean like using privacy.LIE logs to track down visitors to your web
site and harass them on Bruce Schneier's blog using the same sock puppet
bullshit you use in this group?

You mean like your precious Findnot's FIVE DAY anti-abuse log rotation you
ignorant XXXXing sow? The only truth from a whole page of LIES!

http://www.findnot.com/competitive_analysis.html

"We retain log files for a maximum of 5 days...."

What you DON'T tell is that some of their servers are in places that
MAKE you log, or even worse, in places where they could back doored on the
whim of some local yokel, and YOU wouldn't even know it.

> for 95% of surfers on the internet, but you know that you've asked these
> questions before and
> gotten answers.

Yea. the same bullshit, lying, halfwitted, NON-answers you always try and
pass of as something that resembles an intelligent thought. Like your
asinine "5% who count" retardedness. Guess what XXXXXXX, if people need
anonymity they count on it 100%. And YOU ain't giving it to them no matter
how many times you lie and claim otherwise or tap dance around with your
"only the real crooks need it" horse shit.

>
>
> in
>
> Just my opinion as a satisfied user, I hope you don't mind.

I don't mind a bit. In fact I WELCOME the chance to blast you out of the
water. The more you puke up your insidious lies, the more people will see
you for exactly what you are and hopefully make informed choices rather
than fall victim to lowlife snake oil peddlers like you and your false
claims.

>
>
>
> I like Tor through the privacy companies that offer it through their
> tunnels automatically.

Yea, so you can decrypt everything coming in on an encrypted SSH/VPN
connection and read/archive it before your copy of Tor makes it anonymous.
You assholes completely BREAK the anonymity Tor provides with a MITM
attack. I wonder why you'd do that, huh?

At least you're not off on your usual "Tor says its not anonymous" rant.
What the matter, that horse to dead to beat any more? Get your little
behind spanked so hard on it you can't stand to go there any more?

LOL!

> to
>
> Troll and puppet.

You already said that as one of your/you're other socks, dimbulb.

ROTFLAMO!

Notan

2006-05-21, 7:12 pm

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
> I believe you mean "quote [an] entire post" you bitchy cunt. What's that
> matter, is Daddy not pounding your preteen pussy hard enough?

Something about "being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it"
comes to mind.

Notan

TwistyCreek

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

Go back to your ultimate anonymity scam Josh, and spread your bullshit
there, their proxies never work, they only get updated once a month
and go down after 2-3 days, your free software is 10 years out of date
and available on the internet for free for someone stupid enough to
use it, except for only a couple of useless titles they built
themselves, and only half of the messages that go through their re-
mailers even get through

SCAM SHAM

TwistyCreek

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

MarkThompson wrote:

> All you've done is show YOUR ignorance. A public wifi hotspot can be VERY
> anonymous. Not to mention, open wifi connections (that number in the tens

The ignorance is all yours sonny. WiFi is not anonymous in any way shape
or form. There's a hard, traceable path directly back to the exact spot
your sitting in if enough effort is exerted. Which really isn't all that
much if you think about it.

The mere fact that the path back to you exists at ALL is a direct
contradiction to the definition and essence of anonymity. If someone can
identify you, you can NOT be considered anonymous.

> of thousands in my city). The MAC address is NOT a "serial number" to your
> computer. Nobody can track you down through your MAC address. After the

The hell they can't. That MAC is unique to your machine. It's a signature
that at the very LEAST makes you recognizable across different access
points, and you have no idea what so ever whether or not your notebook
manufacturer has that MAC on file alongside the serial number to that
machine. The NSA is data mining telcos and ISP's, what makes you believe
they haven't thought about this ridiculously easy way to

> fact, once someone has your computer, they can make the connection, but
> at that point.......oh......and are you not aware it is very simple to
> SPOOF your MAC address? Doing that, the broadcast MAC ** would NOT **

Your MAC address isn't the only identifying characteristic your machine
has. It's just a shining example.

It's also mostly irrelevant because you're not anonymous to begin with.
That MAC address isn't necessary, it's just more convenient than tracking
you down through the clear path you've left right back to the seat your
rump is warming.

> match up with your computer. You act like you know it all, and dole out
> incorrect information. Several things you said about wifi were

I know considerably more than you do, that much is obvious. And the
information I'm dole out is absolutely, positively, 100% accurate and
sound. It's YOU, sir, who are spreading nonsense and jeopardizing people's
security by telling them they're anonymous when in fact they are only
modestly obfuscated. You're confusing privacy with anonymity, as so many
other neophytes do, just before they embarrass themselves by trying to act
like some sort of credible authority.

> ridiculous but I'll stop here. Oh.....FindNot and Privacy.li are NOT
> linked in any way. The admin of privacy.li never said that. Show us.

Maybe it was Findsnot admin. They both use a similar nick in this
group. Probably because they're the same person. But who can be sure
because neither one of them have the guts to do business out in the open.

They, or he/she is a coward, a liar, and a snake oil peddler. And that's
regardless of their business relationship.

Notan

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

TwistyCreek wrote:
>
> Go back to your ultimate anonymity scam Josh, and spread your bullshit
> there, their proxies never work, they only get updated once a month
> and go down after 2-3 days, your free software is 10 years out of date
> and available on the internet for free for someone stupid enough to
> use it, except for only a couple of useless titles they built
> themselves, and only half of the messages that go through their re-
> mailers even get through

An award for the longest run-on sentence? <g>

Notan

TwistyCreek

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

MarkThompson wrote:

> I won't go into your long rant except to say that Privacy.li and FindNot
> are NOT the same people.

Then they're XXXXing LIARS because they admitted it right here in this
newsgroup after someone busted them on it.

traveler 66

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:1abc2a903bbe382d9b2e37e5b2b697c3@ps
eudo.borked.net...
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
>
> "I'm not just a member of the hair club for men, I'm the president."
>
> LOL!
>
>
> No need. We both remember what your assminus puppet said. Someone outed
> you, and it was one of the few things you couldn't manage to lie your way
> out of.
>
>
> That's true of EVERYONE you lying scumbag. Some people might not NEED to
> be anonymous, but the ones that do can't get it at Findsnot/privacy.LIE or
> any OTHER privacy service. Some of them tell you this up front. Other like
> you lie their asses off. And you in particular make yourself look like a
> total asstard while you're doing it.
>
>
> You mean like using privacy.LIE logs to track down visitors to your web
> site and harass them on Bruce Schneier's blog using the same sock puppet
> bullshit you use in this group?
>
> You mean like your precious Findnot's FIVE DAY anti-abuse log rotation you
> ignorant XXXXing sow? The only truth from a whole page of LIES!
>
> http://www.findnot.com/competitive_analysis.html
>
> "We retain log files for a maximum of 5 days...."
>
> What you DON'T tell is that some of their servers are in places that
> MAKE you log, or even worse, in places where they could back doored on the
> whim of some local yokel, and YOU wouldn't even know it.
>
>
> Yea. the same bullshit, lying, halfwitted, NON-answers you always try and
> pass of as something that resembles an intelligent thought. Like your
> asinine "5% who count" retardedness. Guess what XXXXXXX, if people need
> anonymity they count on it 100%. And YOU ain't giving it to them no matter
> how many times you lie and claim otherwise or tap dance around with your
> "only the real crooks need it" horse shit.
>
>
> I don't mind a bit. In fact I WELCOME the chance to blast you out of the
> water. The more you puke up your insidious lies, the more people will see
> you for exactly what you are and hopefully make informed choices rather
> than fall victim to lowlife snake oil peddlers like you and your false
> claims.
>
>
> Yea, so you can decrypt everything coming in on an encrypted SSH/VPN
> connection and read/archive it before your copy of Tor makes it anonymous.
> You assholes completely BREAK the anonymity Tor provides with a MITM
> attack. I wonder why you'd do that, huh?
>
> At least you're not off on your usual "Tor says its not anonymous" rant.
> What the matter, that horse to dead to beat any more? Get your little
> behind spanked so hard on it you can't stand to go there any more?
>
> LOL!
>
>
> You already said that as one of your/you're other socks, dimbulb.
>
> ROTFLAMO!

Stop trying to spread what you have - puppetry. The only thing I have to do
with .li is a
news account, and I use findnot for browsing, both are excellent as far as
I'm concerned.
As far as all the rest of your FUD, ok, happy? now take some of your pills,
it shows when you don't.

Flush/Troll

Josh Bettenheimer

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

Obviously your period(.) doesn't work, or maybe it's that you are on
your period.

Ignorance is bliss.

TwistyCreek wrote:

> Go back to your ultimate anonymity scam Josh, and spread your bullshit
> there, their proxies never work, they only get updated once a month
> and go down after 2-3 days, your free software is 10 years out of date
> and available on the internet for free for someone stupid enough to
> use it, except for only a couple of useless titles they built
> themselves, and only half of the messages that go through their re-
> mailers even get through
>
> SCAM SHAM
>
>
>

Anonyma

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

"Notan" <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> =E9crit:
>TwistyCreek wrote:
>
>An award for the longest run-on sentence? <g>

No way. I believe that Min probably holds the world record.

Jean

---

TwistyCreek

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

Cotse XXXX puppets are out playing again, must have the black box fixed

Sheik Yurbhuti

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

"traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Stop trying to spread what you have - puppetry. The only thing I have
> to do with .li is a
> news account, and I use findnot for browsing, both are excellent as
> far as I'm concerned.

Now waitadamnedminute. Just two posts ago you proudly proclaimed "logs
are the important thing for 95% of surfers on the internet...". This
poster claims Findnot keeps logs around longer the than another service
you're always attacking over its logging practices, the only thing you
can even find to latch on to in fact, lame as it is.

A quick surf to the provided link confirms he's right, partner, Findnot
*is* an admitted logger.

And the incident at the Dog House is well documented.

But here you are still calling someone else a sock puppet, claiming
they're the one spreading FUD, and most ironic of all saying Privacy.li
and Findnot are excellent in your opinion?

Apparently your "opinion" isn't formed with any regard what so ever to
any of the rhetoric you fling around, now is it?

You don't give a damned about any logs, you have an agenda, and that
agenda is to promote certain services. And in yet *another* glaring bit
of irony you happen to promote the two that there's apparently
been an admission of association by one of the admins. The same two you
just "happen to use" and find "outstanding".

Please don't insult your own intelligence any more by claiming you're
not the puppet of these two services. You've pretty much just proved it
beyond any doubt at all when you ignore their logs, but blurt out
statements like you've made about logging.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEcR4hno5iexlRIBERAzQWAJ9d0njwc95I
kAr1DxB7HLjsSRGNqgCbBdzr
7lScnd5x6YNTs8NNOLfKA9c=
=LEYF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

traveler 66 wrote:

> Stop trying to spread what you have - puppetry. The only thing I have to
> do with .li is a
> news account, and I use findnot for browsing, both are excellent as far as
> I'm concerned.

Aren't you and your bag of smelly socks the ones always yapping about
logs? Why yes, that would be you.

Privacy.li's absolutely hilarious in context use of them aside, why aren't
you whining about Findnot? Why are they "excellent", but Cotse's logging
which only archives for 3/5 of the duration last I knew, is a bad thing?

Why are you still running your mouth about the "main thing is logs"
even in this very thread, but turning your other face around and chatting
up Findnot?

You certainly look more and more like a hypocrite with a clear agenda as
time goes on kid.

> As far as all the rest of your FUD, ok, happy? now take some of your
> pills, it shows when you don't.
>
> Flush/Troll

And why in God's name do you reply then sign off with "flush"? Don't you
have any idea how retarded it makes you look? If you're going to "flush"
something, do it. Don't reply to something and then tell the world you're
discarding it. That's just stump stupid.

traveler 66

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

"Sheik Yurbhuti" <anon@comments.header> wrote in message
news:GGGZQXLU38858.9804976852@twistycreek.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> "traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Now waitadamnedminute. Just two posts ago you proudly proclaimed "logs
> are the important thing for 95% of surfers on the internet...". This
> poster claims Findnot keeps logs around longer the than another service
> you're always attacking over its logging practices, the only thing you
> can even find to latch on to in fact, lame as it is.
>
> A quick surf to the provided link confirms he's right, partner, Findnot
> *is* an admitted logger.

Yep, that happened after I joined them, they now keep them for 5 days,
I'll correct myself and say they are an excellent service besides that, I
hope they
clear up exactly what they log for the benefit of their users.

>
> And the incident at the Dog House is well documented.
>
> But here you are still calling someone else a sock puppet, claiming
> they're the one spreading FUD, and most ironic of all saying Privacy.li
> and Findnot are excellent in your opinion?
>
> Apparently your "opinion" isn't formed with any regard what so ever to
> any of the rhetoric you fling around, now is it?
>
> You don't give a damned about any logs, you have an agenda, and that
> agenda is to promote certain services. And in yet *another* glaring bit
> of irony you happen to promote the two that there's apparently
> been an admission of association by one of the admins. The same two you
> just "happen to use" and find "outstanding".

It's a good service, and I don't have an agenda, the loggs are a drawback.
(and a bit of a surprise) Why don't you post thie admission you write
about,
they're two seperate companies.

>
> Please don't insult your own intelligence any more by claiming you're
> not the puppet of these two services. You've pretty much just proved it
> beyond any doubt at all when you ignore their logs, but blurt out
> statements like you've made about logging.

Don't be a troll. I'm only a subscriber - who doesn't like logs.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFEcR4hno5iexlRIBERAzQWAJ9d0njwc95I
kAr1DxB7HLjsSRGNqgCbBdzr
> 7lScnd5x6YNTs8NNOLfKA9c=
> =LEYF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

Sheik Yurbhuti

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

"traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:

>
> Yep, that happened after I joined them, they now keep them for 5 days,
> I'll correct myself and say they are an excellent service besides
> that, I hope they
> clear up exactly what they log for the benefit of their users.

You mean like Cotse has always done, even while you were chastising
them for logging?

When Findnot retais logs *longer* than Cotse they're "excellent
except for that". Even after you just got through arguing that logs
were some sort of Holy Grail of privacy services, to defend your false
assertion that privacy services can be anonymous.

When Cotse is *honest* about what they log, with retention less than
the service you're defending, you attack like a rabid Muppet on crack
with so many different aliases we'd swear there were a dozen people
people doing it if it weren't so ridiculously obvious from your wretched
spelling and grammar that it's really just you.

You are a stone hypocrite. You have zero credibility. It's clear as a
bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
some more for pointing out our glaringly obvious dishonesty.

Good day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEcUYeno5iexlRIBERA2fuAJoD9Lqq8g8N
5/jDFfAIknyRyBP9eACdHyHu
VCZRdUAQLVPpDtKCyGtyQ0E=
=dCv/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-22, 1:12 am

TwistyCreek wrote:

> Cotse XXXX puppets are out playing again, must have the black box fixed

Powr widdle baby.... did diddums get spanked AGAIN!?

ROTFLAMO!

traveler 66

2006-05-22, 7:12 am

"Sheik Yurbhuti" <anon@comments.header> wrote in message
news:4SQTEVUN38859.0666087963@twistycreek.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> "traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
>
> You mean like Cotse has always done, even while you were chastising
> them for logging?

Yep, like Cotse has always done, and Findnot has NOT always done.

>
> When Findnot retais logs *longer* than Cotse they're "excellent
> except for that". Even after you just got through arguing that logs

They both keep them for up to 5 days from what I've read, the difference is
Findnot
is offshore, don't get me wrong, I'm not impressed that they have logs now.
(Findnot)

> were some sort of Holy Grail of privacy services, to defend your false
> assertion that privacy services can be anonymous.
>
> When Cotse is *honest* about what they log, with retention less than
> the service you're defending, you attack like a rabid Muppet on crack

It seems to me others are being "honest" as well, they tell you what they do
on their
web site, the only ones that seem to constantly feel they have to say their
honest like a
broken record are the puppets from Cotse like you, there must be a reason
for this.
Trash everyone else, and praise our "honesty", very good!

> with so many different aliases we'd swear there were a dozen people
> people doing it if it weren't so ridiculously obvious from your wretched
> spelling and grammar that it's really just you.

The one with all the alias's is you, a good example is this new one your
using,
muppet is a good description of you, and I know, any spelling mistakes have
to be
me.

>
> You are a stone hypocrite. You have zero credibility. It's clear as a
> bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
> you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
> I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
> defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

You and the two other puppets from Cotse should get a life, you really
should.
I'm waiting to see your next handle, this shiek one would be kinda funny if
you weren't
such a kook.

>
> Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
> some more for pointing out our glaringly obvious dishonesty.
>
> Good day.

All the best.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iD8DBQFEcUYeno5iexlRIBERA2fuAJoD9Lqq8g8N
5/jDFfAIknyRyBP9eACdHyHu
> VCZRdUAQLVPpDtKCyGtyQ0E=
> =dCv/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-22, 1:12 pm

>Ignorance is bliss.

It is for you and your ultimate anonimity scammers, bullshit artist

TwistyCreek

2006-05-22, 1:12 pm

traveler 66 wrote:

>
> "Sheik Yurbhuti" <anon@comments.header> wrote in message
> news:GGGZQXLU38858.9804976852@twistycreek.com...
>
> Yep, that happened after I joined them, they now keep them for 5 days,
> I'll correct myself and say they are an excellent service besides that, I
> hope they
> clear up exactly what they log for the benefit of their users.

Oh sure.... but Cotse is a lying TLA logging service with black boxes
installed all over the place.

You are a whole new breed of hypocritical XXXXXXX.

traveler 66

2006-05-22, 7:12 pm

On 22 May 2006 18:38:12 -0000, TwistyCreek wrote:

> traveler 66 wrote:
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> You think the "your-you're" stupidity is the ONLY thing that outs you?
> What a knuckle dragging IMBECILE! You haven't a single CLUE!
>
> Hell, even your XXXXed up WORD WRAP nails you a lot of the time.
>
> LOL! LOL! LOL!
>
> There's so much shit you do consistently wrong or screwed up its amazing
> even YOU can still claim you're not at least a dozen different socks.
>
> You look like a XXXXing IDIOT!
>
> Yeah yeah..... "troll flush blah blah blah.........."
>
> LOL!

Go away puppet and take Gielda with you.

blackhat

2006-05-22, 7:12 pm

>You look like a XXXXing IDIOT!

>Yeah yeah..... "troll flush blah blah blah.........."

You make a lousy poopit Gilda, frack off with your trolls clown

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:28:51 +0000, TwistyCreek wrote:
>
>
>
> I thought it was notorious that people with wireless routers usually leave
> them unprotected. What are the odds that the signal somebody is leeching
> off is an unprotected wireless router vs. a NSA trap? 99999 to 1?

What are the odds that layered encryption would be cracked compared to
it not? TRILLIONS to one?

**BOOM**

So much for your argument, huh?

99,999 is a RIDICULOUSLY TINY number, but less lob another grenade, OK?

What are the odds that someone might spot the extra connection and start
looking out their windows to see who the XXXX is stealing their internet
connection, then write down your license plate and report you to the
police? A lot worse than 99,999 to one I'd say.

In fact this exact thing has happened twice now near me, and once in a
relatives' neighborhood about 150 miles from me. Within the last 90 days.
That's right, script kiddies thinking they're "31337 hax0r wArDrIvErZ" get
busted every day because someone happens to be awake enough to see their
connections (or gets woken up by the alarm the connection triggers), and
simply LOOKS to see whose parked out front. Two or three reports of this
sort of shit and at the very LEAST the cops are looking for a make and
model of car. And they WILL find you sooner or later.

Now, in contrast, when have you heard of even a SINGLE case of someone
being caught that's used something like Tor or anonymous remailers,
without that person being a complete dunderhead? When have you EVER heard
of the protocols or encryption themselves being compromised.

You haven't.

Now what were those "odds" you were talking about again? And where does
the smart money get bet again?

No need to even answer. It's that obvious.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

nemo_outis wrote:

> TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote in
> news:X7T90AQ038859.7283680556@twistycreek.com:
>
>
>
> More Humpty Dumpty definitions from you! Do you ever bother to find out
> what the rest of the English-speaking world means by a word before you
> spin and twist it to suit your purposes?

I think we should do exactly that. Here's a real good definition. Feel
free to counter with "Wikipedia" or and give us all another reason to
laugh at you.

http://www.virginia.edu/vprgs/irb/sbs_glossary.html

"Anonymity
Pertains to the information that an individual has disclosed in a study
with the expectation that the information has no identifiers linked to the
participant and therefore cannot in any way be traced to the participant.
"Anonymity" and "confidentiality" do not have the same meaning and are not
interchangeable."

See that part about "cannot in ANY WAY be traced", bigmouth?

See the distinction between ANONYMITY and CONFIDENTIALITY, bigmouth?

Wanna get into a quibble about how confidentiality and privacy are nearly
synonymous, with one showing up in almost every definition of the other,
bigmouth?

I didn't think so.

How about THIS paper, bigmouth?

http://www.win.tue.nl/~ecss/downloads/esorics04.pdf

"A Formalization of Anonymity and Onion Routing
(....)
The so-called functional class in the Common Criteria (CC, [10]) distin-
guishes between four aspects of privacy: anonymity, pseudonymity, unlinkabil-
ity and unobservability. Anonymity, which is the topic of our current research,
ensures that a subject may use a resource or service without disclosing its user
identity."

Or this one, bigmouth.

http://dud.inf.tu-dresden.de/litera...nology_v0.5.pdf

"Anonymity is the state of being not identifiable within a set of
subjects, the anonymity set. The anonymity set is the set of all possible
subjects who might cause an action."

Do feel free to amuse me by arguing that being in a WiFi "cloud" makes you
UNIDENTIFIABLE from any other member, bigmouth.

Here's another resource you might educate yourself with, bigmouth.

Defining Anonymity and its Dimensions in the Electronic World
http://users.skynet.be/bgoddyn/publpdf/defining.pdf

<snip>

Now go leg hump someone else before I REALLY decide to give you a severe
spanking with about 30 more definitions of anonymity that lay waste to
your "what the sheep think" idiocy. Which is really nothing more than your
childish vendetta for the severe beating I've dealt you over just about
everything else you've tried to bullshit your way through.

nemo_outis

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
news:42dcb75b3d32851352364d6da154c659@ps
eudo.borked.net:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
> I think we should do exactly that. Here's a real good definition. Feel
> free to counter with "Wikipedia" or and give us all another reason to
> laugh at you.
>
> http://www.virginia.edu/vprgs/irb/sbs_glossary.html

Hilarious! A rambling, contrived definition that could only have been
produced by a social scientist.

But, you hopeless ninny, in your eagerness to find a definition that
would support your idiotic position, you failed to read the warning that
prefaces the very glossary (not dictionary!) from which you cribbed it.
I quote verbatim:
___

The definitions below pertain to usage within the context of the U.Va.
Institutional Review Board for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Policies and Procedures, and may therefore differ from general
interpretations or definitions.
___

The definition of anonymity you quoted applies only, as it says in the
definition itself "to the information an individual has disclosed in a
study" and is clearly a limited and specialized one for a very specific
context and application. Are you always this sloppy and slipshod?

I, on the other hand, was not so cavalier. My seemingly innocuous
sentence in my previous post, "Anonymous means nameless, having no name,
or of unknown name." uses exactly the primary definition for anonymous in
the Oxford English Dictionary. Sandbagged you again, sucker!

Regards,

traveler 66

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

amadeus

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

"TwistyCreek" <anon@comments.header> wrote in message
news:YO1FMT8O38859.583125@twistycreek.com...
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Oh sure.... but Cotse is a lying TLA logging service with black boxes
> installed all over the place.
>
> You are a whole new breed of hypocritical XXXXXXX.

I wonder what makes you such a troll, you must have been abused or something
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

TwistyCreek

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

nemo_outis wrote:

> I, on the other hand, was not so cavalier. My seemingly innocuous
> sentence in my previous post, "Anonymous means nameless, having no name,
> or of unknown name." uses exactly the primary definition for anonymous in
> the Oxford English Dictionary. Sandbagged you again, sucker!

Hardly. Your "dictionary" definition and why it doesn't apply in this
context was fully addressed in the cites you snipped and fled. I made
absolutely sure they were included because I'm always going to be just a
bit smarter than you, and a couple steps ahead. I'd already andicipated
your lame "Webster's" argument, and went looking for contradictory
evidence before you had the chance to spew it. Or so I thought. I guess
you just weren't quite bright enough to see you'd already been defeated on
the point.

Thanks for not disappointing the class by nit picking the single issue you
felt you could get away with, and cowering away from the rest.

And by the way, you conspicuously truncated the "disclaimer" you quoted.
Don't think that went unnotices either.

MarkThompson

2006-05-23, 1:13 am

Good job getting off on the definitions tangent. You effectively dodged
my response to why your "Path back to your location" argument is of no
concern whatsoever. I'm sure you would rather discuss the definition of
"anonymity" versus "privacy." You still haven't shown how I could be
found using your OWN definition. Leave out the Dick Tracy stuff and
stick to realistic scenarios that one might face. Suggesting that the
ONE open-WiFi I might choose at random could be compromised by NSA is
about as likely as your beloved remailer being run by the NSA.
Oh.....but that can't be, because that is YOUR method. We've all pretty
much figured out your arrogant assumptions and accusations made from
ignorance, not to mention an anger that is hard to figure out. Where
does that come from?

nemo_outis

2006-05-23, 7:13 am

TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote in
news:9UC2S4ZH38860.040150463@twistycreek.com:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
> Hardly. Your "dictionary" definition and why it doesn't apply in this
> context was fully addressed in the cites you snipped and fled.
....

Dear, dear, dear. I should charge for having to educate you. BTW which
"you" are you this time, Twisty or Borked?

I have already dismantled and demolished the first idiotic definition
you put forth. Now on to the others. I don't do this for your sake, but
to show others how one goes about gutting fools like you as if filleting
a fish.

Your quotation from "A Formalization of Anonymity and Onion Routing" was
not the author's definition of anonymity, but a prefatory discussion and
description. His actual definition - which you omitted from ignorance or
stupidity, I guess - is a slight variant of Pfitzmann's (which we'll
consider next).

Moving on to the next, we come upon a terminological proposal by
Pfitzmann. Note well, it's a proposal. He's making a case why a
definition he has produced should be considered for adoption by others.
That means, of course, that the definition has NOT been broadly accepted,
or a proposal and a case pushing it would not be necessary. Note also
that he laments that, as of the date of his proposal, 2001, there is not
a consensus definition of anonymity that suits his purposes. He also
confines his definition to a specific limited context set out under the
heading "Setting" and does not try to set out a more general meaning of
anonymity. (Fortunately it is a context that is relevant.)

His definition itself is, aside from its awkward use of mathematical
terminology, rather like a bikini: what it reveals is interesting; what
it conceals is crucial. It depends on a concept even more slippery than
anonymity itself: identifiability. And the apparent brevity of the
definition is also deficient - it requires several paragraphs of
supporting description and the introduction of a number of other concepts
(identifiability is one) before the definition can stand without furhter
aid.

But the definition (not unlike the sociological one you cited earlier) is
not entirely useless - it could have some worthwhile uses in some
specific and limited contexts. Which brings us to the crux (and this
point applies to the next definition as well).

Definitions can be descriptive or prescriptive. Descriptive definitions
capture what people mean when they use a term; prescriptive definitions
are an *order* of what a term *shall* mean. Prescriptive definitions can
offer more precision than descriptive definitions (at the loss of
generality, nuance, connotation, not to mention acceptance) and they can
also be a source of confusions and dispute. Because of their precision at
the cost of generality, they are almost always only applicable in a
limited context.

They are, of course, propounded only because they necessarily differ from
descriptive definitions of what people ordinarily mean by a term -
otherwise there would be no need for or point in a prescriptive
definition. And finally, prescriptive definitions rely on the authority
of the propounder (either personal or institutional) in making the
prescription - the order, the "shall mean" - stick! A prescriptive
definition must be imposed (for if a prescriptive definition were adopted
by consensus it would transform itself into a descriptive definition.)

Pfitzmann has no authority to impose a defintion - he can only propose
one. And you, Borky (or Twisty, or whoever you are - there's that
identifiability problem again) have absolutely no credibility or
authority to impose a definition. You can only submit one (or more)
prescriptive definitions for our consideration and invite - not order -
us to adopt it. And if we reject your proposal, you're buggered.

But descriptive definitions, on the other hand, by their very nature
already capture and reflect what people broadly agree is the meaning of a
term or word as expressed by actual usage (or, more precisely, a skilled
lexicographer has done his best to capture the consensus meaning of the
word). There is no need to impose them - they have already been widely
accepted. And so it is to descriptive definitions we must turn unless
there is agreement by all to use another definition. Only if you could
show that my usage of a term was at variance with the broadly-based usage
of a term could you say I was using it wrongly. And that you haven't
done and can't do!

As for your last source, that is quickly disposed of. It is only a term
paper by nobody of importance proposing terminology within the context of
partial fulfillment of the requirements of a seminar. IOW it's a XXXXing
term paper, for Christ's sake, and carries no more weight than the
wrapping fish are delivered in!

So that is why the descriptive definition I used from the OED (which has
immense lexicographical authority and standing regarding the accuracy of
its descriptive definitions) trumps all your prescriptive ones.

Regards,

PS If I have to give more lessons to fill in the lacunae (or rather
chasms) in your understanding, you'd better have your chequebook handy.

Anonymous

2006-05-23, 7:13 am

"MarkThompson" <privatesurfing@gmail.com> wrote:

> Everything you write comes back to LOCATION. I could care less if an
> adversary knows AFTER THE FACT that I was anywhere in a city of several

1) You have no guarantee that the adversary can only know this data
'after the fact', you only have your belief that it's true.

> million people. This "real-time" stuff is science fiction bullshit.
> Tracking down to an IP in real time and anybody arriving at that
> location, in "real-time," is impossible. I know of no TLA with a
> "Beam-Me-To-IP, Scotty" machine.

2) In determining the details of your threat model, it is always
a good idea to assume that your adversary has more money, personel,
equipment and a higher level of technology than you do and make your
plans accordingly. At work we call this the "two is one, one is none."
philosophy.

> Anonymity versus privacy is an old argument. Do you know how many
> authors have written as "anonymous" only to be found out? That's a
> semantic argument that may, or may not, have relevance in this
> discussion. I say tomaYto, you say tomaHto. For now, I think I can
> claim anonymity under my scenario, even using your definition.
>
> As for the "radio signal" and "electromagnetic" argument....With my
> scenario you again assume that I would send ANYTHING in the clear.
> Using a LiveCD with TOR all info would be wrapped in encryption and I
> would be using the open WiFi only for their pipes. That completely
> defeats your "anonymity to prisoner." By the way, just a disclaimer,
> I haven't DONE anything to become a "prisoner." But I understand what
> you were saying and I just explained why your all-knowing TLA was
> thwarted again.
>

3) Even if you send nothing that isn't wrapped in multiple layers of
strong encryption, the radio signal used to transport the data can
easily be detected and triangulated. Given your location, all the
TLA needs to do is pick you up and apply rubber hose cryptography to
you or better yet, to your loved ones while you are forced to watch.

And before you try to argue that they'd never do that. Think again.
Human's are evil natured enough to imagine and do almost anything. Up to
and including forcing you to watch as your wife and children are flayed
alive.

> Bottom line: "The path back to my location," which seems to concern you
> so much does not concern me at all. I was there for five minutes and
> will never be back there again. BTW, if crucial and sensitive,
> real-world privacy measures would also be used so no physical
> identification could be made by anyone. Lost in the crowd. Here. Gone.
> Never to return.
>

4) Again, always assume that your adversary knows more than you think,
has more resorces (equipment, technology, time, money, etc) and the
willingness to use them.

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-23, 7:13 am

MarkThompson wrote:

> Good job getting off on the definitions tangent.

But that's what we're discussing, the differences between the two. You
can't have any sort of intelligent discourse without those definitions.

> You effectively dodged my
> response to why your "Path back to your location" argument is of no
> concern whatsoever.

I didn't dodge anything, you're simply wrong. I've demonstrated that in a
number of different ways, you simply fail to see it or care to admit it.
Whatever "issues" you have that make you behave this way are irrelevant,
the fact that you're spreading misinformation is not.

> I'm sure you would rather discuss the definition of
> "anonymity" versus "privacy." You still haven't shown how I could be
> found using your OWN definition. Leave out the Dick Tracy stuff and stick

It's not comic book fantasy we're talking about. People get found out all
the time using the exact methods you describe. They're not anonymous, and
if someone wants them bad enough they will be able to own them. That's not
made up Dick Tracy stuff buddy, that's the hard cold reality of life
whether you care to accept it or not.

> to realistic scenarios that one might face. Suggesting that the ONE
> open-WiFi I might choose at random could be compromised by NSA is about as
> likely as your beloved remailer being run by the NSA. Oh.....but that
> can't be, because that is YOUR method.

Bullshit! Now you've begun to flat out LIE to make your point. What I said
is that it doesn't MATTER if a remailer or Tor node is compromised
by LE because mix and onion routing protocols are ANONYMOUS mechanisms
designed to reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of a compromised node.
That's WHY they're designed like they are, with layered encryption that
makes it mathematically impossible for them to own you by owning a node.

For you a compromised hotspot is a XXXXing disaster. For me a compromised
node is a minor concern. If your hotspot DOES happen to be compromised
they can know anything and everything about you. If a remailer is
compromised they have absolutely no way of knowing who is doing what. None.

I truly WISH war driving made you anonymous to be honest. Tapping
someone's high speed home cable connection or a big fat pipe at some
business would be a damned sight less painful that the intermittent
flakiness of the remailer network or the slowness of something like Tor.
You could have the very best of both worlds. Fast, reliable access, and
complete security.

But it just ain't so dude. As much as I dislike it, and you defend it like
it was your religion, making a clear connection to ANY service or hotspot
simply is not, and never CAN BE anonymous.

> We've all pretty much figured out
> your arrogant assumptions and accusations made from ignorance, not to
> mention an anger that is hard to figure out. Where does that come from?

Dealing with morons, liars, and even unwittingly mistaken people who
defend false premises even after all the evidence and every speck of
common sense completely and utterly demolishes everything they're trying
to defend. For years without end it seems.

You're neither first, nor the most clever person to fail miserably in
trying to defend things like "anonymous proxies" "anonymity services" and
"WiFi hotspots" as anonymous methods. And you certainly won't be the last.
You're just one more less than remarkable, soon to be forgotten name in
a long line of anal retentive "zealots" who think they have the world by
the gonads because they can't see the simple folly in their own thought
processes. It's not even all that unusual, it's just annoying as hell
after a while. You could gather all this information for yourself if you
really wanted to be an educated soul, but you're content to live in
ignorance. No, not just content, EAGER.

Oh, and let's not forget the juvenile way you entered into this debate to
begin with. What was the very first thing coming off your fingers? This
little bit of love and tenderness.....

"All you've done is show YOUR ignorance."

You START the fray by opening with an insult, then piss your little
panties and moan about being insulted? XXXX you, everyone who smells as
bad as you do, and the XXXXing horse that rode your ignorant XXX through
the door Markie. You're nothing more than a hypocritical little whiner all
bent out of shape because he tried to verbally abuse someone and got
XXXXing DEMOLISHED.

You wanna pretend to be significant or potent? I suggest you stick to some
venue a little better suited to your talents like kindergarten or Church
groups. Because out here in Usenet where the big dogs play you just ain't
measuring up, sonny boy.

MarkThompson

2006-05-23, 7:13 am

You talk a game, don't you? Whew! Excuse me, while I go get out of my
shaking boots. I can spot insecurity sheltered by bragadocious BS a
mile away.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-05-23, 7:13 am

MarkThompson wrote:

> You talk a game, don't you? Whew! Excuse me, while I go get out of my
> shaking boots. I can spot insecurity sheltered by bragadocious BS a mile
> away.

Ohhh.... you don't have to stretch your senses anywhere near that far
sonny. Just stick your fat head between your legs and get a good whiff of
your your own XXX.

We'll just assume your wholesale snip and inability to actually defend
yourself against even a SINGLE point means you're admitting defeat and
simply trying to win a point for "tenacious" by getting in a last word.

By all means do enjoy yourself that little bit if you like.

traveler 66

2006-05-23, 7:13 am

"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97CBDE500CE0Aabcxyzcom@204.153.244.170...
> Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
> news:42dcb75b3d32851352364d6da154c659@ps
eudo.borked.net:
>
>
>
> Hilarious! A rambling, contrived definition that could only have been
> produced by a social scientist.
>
> But, you hopeless ninny, in your eagerness to find a definition that
> would support your idiotic position, you failed to read the warning that
> prefaces the very glossary (not dictionary!) from which you cribbed it.
> I quote verbatim:
> ___
>
> The definitions below pertain to usage within the context of the U.Va.
> Institutional Review Board for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
> Policies and Procedures, and may therefore differ from general
> interpretations or definitions.
> ___
>
> The definition of anonymity you quoted applies only, as it says in the
> definition itself "to the information an individual has disclosed in a
> study" and is clearly a limited and specialized one for a very specific
> context and application. Are you always this sloppy and slipshod?
>
> I, on the other hand, was not so cavalier. My seemingly innocuous
> sentence in my previous post, "Anonymous means nameless, having no name,
> or of unknown name." uses exactly the primary definition for anonymous in
> the Oxford English Dictionary. Sandbagged you again, sucker!
>
> Regards,

You're wasting your time, this guy's a kook and he thinks he's a linguist to
boot,
he's the same one that was posting definitions and usages before.

nemo_outis

2006-05-23, 7:12 pm

"traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote in
news:4472d010$0$496$450c70f1@news.privacy.li:

> You're wasting your time, this guy's a kook and he thinks he's a
> linguist to boot,
> he's the same one that was posting definitions and usages before.

It's positively heartening to see how much comfort you morons take in each
other's company.

Do continue your morons' circle jerk - it's most amusing.

Regards,

TwistyCreek

2006-05-24, 1:13 am

nemo_outis wrote:

> "traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote in
> news:4472d010$0$496$450c70f1@news.privacy.li:
>
>
>
> It's positively heartening to see how much comfort you morons take in each
> other's company.
>
> Do continue your morons' circle jerk - it's most amusing.

Especially when a leg humping twaddler like you steps in to be the pivot
XXXXX.

Welcome aboard sweetie. Do them teeth come out?

MarkThompson

2006-05-24, 7:12 am

You know, you think your (and your puppets) way of
.....uh...."writing"....is as a "big, badass on Usenet." Do you not
realize It actually comes across more like white trailer trash? Someone
of any intellect at all doesn't need to write things like.....

" Especially when a leg humping twaddler like you steps in to be the
pivot XXXXX. Welcome aboard sweetie. Do them teeth come out?"

"Just stick your fat head between your legs and get a good whiff of
your your own XXX."

"XXXX you, everyone who smells as bad as you do, and the XXXXing horse
that rode your ignorant XXX through the door Markie."

NOBODY who talks and writes like that to prove themselves as a "big
mean dog on Usenet" has an ounce of respect from anybody. It's a funny
thing, go figure, there's just something about that white trailer trash
talk that grates on the nerves of any one with a lick of sense.

OK, I admit, I had to get the last word in. Your trailer talk just
demands a decent white man's back hand.

Ari Silverstein

2006-05-24, 1:12 pm

On 23 May 2006 23:02:27 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

> Do continue your morons' circle jerk - it's most amusing.

I find it amusing that you would be watching.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

TwistyCreek

2006-05-24, 7:12 pm

Ari Silverstein wrote:

> On 23 May 2006 23:02:27 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
> I find it amusing that you would be watching.

Must be dick shopping just like you, huh?

Ari Silverstein

2006-05-29, 5:02 pm

On 24 May 2006 20:13:17 -0000, TwistyCreek wrote:

>
> Must be dick shopping just like you, huh?

I have one. How's the shopping?
--
Drop the alphabet for email