| TwistyCreek 2006-06-28, 7:12 pm |
| andocrates@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't want to step into anything here . . . well, yes I do.
> yesterday my findnot service quit working and I actually had real
> trouble finding any information. (I still don't know anything, except
> for these massages) Back when I joined findnot, a year or so ago
> looked at coates - but it makes no sense to join a "privacy" site
> that keeps logs - how does such a contradiction even exist? Hats off
There's nothing at all contradictory about a privacy service keeping
logs. The contradiction is a privacy service saying they don't, and a
any such service claiming they give you any sort of anonymous or
untraceable quality at all.
Privacy and anonymity are two completely different things. Anonymity
means *nobody* knows your personal information, privacy means only
*authorized* persons know your personal information. That's why your
medical records are private, and not anonymous. 
In any case, you must have missed the part where Findnot finally
admitted in public that they kept logs for the purposes of "dealing
with abuse". They admitted to keeping them longer than Cotse in fact.
I'll bet you missed the amusing incident where another so called
anonymity service of ill repute was actually caught red handed
*using* their logs to track down visitors to their site. Their logs
pointed to a Blog run by a very well known personality in the
privacy/security world, where they began attacking people using the same
methods and even the exact same sock puppets they use here.
If you believe there are any of these types of services that don't log
you're just being gullible. You're falling for the big lie they want you
to fall for, and handing your money over to people who are deceiving
you. The only significant difference in this respect between a service
like Cotse and a service like Findnot is the fact that Cotse tells you
right up front and in no uncertain terms about their abilities and
limitations. The others overstate their capabilities, and flat out lie
about their limitations.
Now if you would rather hand money to known liars and live in a state
of delusion that's certainly up to you. But don't blunder into a forum
where people know better and start spewing the nonsense you've been
spoon fed by liars like you actually think you know what you're talking
about. I can guarantee having your misconceptions corrected won't be
a pleasant experience, especially when you start flinging shit right
from the get go.
> to them if they can make a living at such a ludicrous business. Your
> FAQ reads like you WANT to turn people in. This is not a business for
I can't actually speak for Steve, but I'd wager there's some types of
activity where this might actually be true. I know it would be if I
were at the wheel. There's some people who just don't deserve any
protection or consideration. I'd log them myself and be up front about
it, because if they're using your services you're probably going to be
forced to log them under a gag order eventually anyway. Bets to let
them know about it beforehand, and maybe most of them will waste their
time and money at places no more secure, but thoroughly dishonest.
> an American, an American is the last person you want to trust with
> your security (yes, I'm American) we'll roll over like a 10 dollar
> hooker.
You have a very obtuse and politically brainwashed view of privacy and
anonymity laws and atmospheres around the globe. The US is now, and
always has been, one of the most privacy friendly jurisdictions on the
planet. And that's true in spite of all the recent cackling about NSA
this and FBI that. The US is just *starting* to catch up to most other
countries, and nowhere near as bad a quite a few.
It was brought to our attention right here in fact, that one nation
where these "privacy services" like to house their servers doesn't even
require a warrant for some cop to walk through the door and confiscate
equipment. That, or another jurisdiction, flatly *require* anyone
running such a service inside their borders keep logs, and maintain
them for a lot longer three, or enven five to seven days. Another
example was given where it was easier for an American official to get
logs off a foreign machine, than it was one in his own country.
Even the example of Echelon was raised, to show that the US often
implements it's snooping in "off shore" locations because those laws
are nowhere near as restrictive than the laws in the US.
>
> One set of logs isn't bad enough we need two?.
If you believe that you're just subject to two sets of logs, even
without your service providers logging you, then you are once again
just being very gullible. 
> "Hey trag since them
> bitches down at comcast are keeping logs on us lets pay someone else
> to keep oue logs, and just for kicks get them to cut our Internet
> speed in half.
Huh? What do logs and throughput have to do with each other? Do you
really believe that keeping logs "cuts your speed in half"???
|