|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > June 2007 > Scamster site, privacy.li (update)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]Pages: Pages: 1 [2]
| Author |
Scamster site, privacy.li (update)
|
|
| mrbunbun 2007-06-06, 1:14 pm |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Someone Else wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion if I were you. We
> have seen first hand at least two occasions where the slimy XXXXs have
> used information they claim not to collect for the sole purpose of
> causing someone harm they calim they'll never do, when that someone
> said something they disliked.
>
> We already know they're not above breaking their own rules, let alone
> ignoring anything that resembles ethics.
>
>
>
>
> Indeed. Using Tor via a proxy of any type is silly. It completely
> demolishes any benefit Tor brings to the table, yet the privacy.LIE
> puppets defend it as an "added layer of protection" to this day.
>
> It's not, of course, it's one way to compromise Tor. Something only
> criminals or law enforcement would have any reason to do.
>
>
>
>
Well, beside the usual ranting of the puppets. Don't forget that Tor
issues this exact message:
"This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity."
Would you take an experimental drug and rely on it completely ? ;-)
Or rather a service which uses established methods to add to your
anonymity and has something to lose like clients and reputation?
==
Eitherway, it's always the same story in this newsgroup, 1 or 2 rotten
sicko's try to promote a service like cotse which logs and sits in land
of the unfree. Any other provider is bad bad baaaaad ! LOL
Bring it on puppets !  Need to have some fun today !
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-06-06, 1:14 pm |
| Someone Else wrote:
>
> It used to concern me in the days before Tor. But of course there is
> no reason not to connect to prviv thru Tor. This will effectively hide
> your ISP from them, so whether or not they keep logs (and of course
> they do) they cannot out you.
But they *DO* become a central "collection agency" for all your Tor
traffic, tying it to a paid account and defeating at the very least
Tor's "revolving exit node" quality. They effectively take you from
being anonymous to being pseudonymous, which as we know from decades of
remailer experience is considerably less secure for a number of
reasons.
Any access of Tor through a proxy, or visa versa, diminishes Tor and
adds no security in any way. It's a bad thing no matter what, the only
thing that's open to debate is how bad it is.
>
>
> Both Cotse and Privi need income to stay afloat. This is why they
> will use whatever argument they can muster to keep you paying
> them. FUD goes with the territory. After all the whole business of
This is what separates Cotse and other honest providers from snake oil
peddlers like privacy.LIE. They simply do not engage in FUD spreading
in any way shape or form. Cotse in particular was built on a principal
of honesty and openness, which is why the scammers who refused to
follow that lead hate them so much. Cotse makes them look bad without
even trying.
If you have an example of how has lied or spread FUD, please post it.
> anomymous remailers, servers, mail to news gateways is founded
> on people who for whatever reason have something to hide. And
> before the shills come running accusing me of child rape or
> whatever, my reason is financial. There are some people who
> for whatever reason need to keep their finances secret. No, I
> am not a drug baron, just an ordinary mutt who does not want all
> his financial transactions made public.
>
>
> I don't know what experiences you have had personally with privi.li.
> I speak as I find. I have only had positive experiences, but that is not
> the same as claiming I trust them. On the contrary I do not trust
> anybody. My preferred service is certainly Tor. It is free, open
> source and very effective. There are 3 proxies to the single
> Cotse or Privi server - yes I do know about chaining, but doubles
> the cost. But sometimes 3 is not enough and maybe it
> could be a good idea to route thru Cotse or Privi additionally.
Chaining proxies and onion routing are two completely different things.
There's layers of encryption that need peeled away at each link in the
chain before data can be passed through an onion network that simply
do not exist in a simple proxy chain. One is anonymous because the
magic number 3 leaves a node in the middle who is oblivious to
everything, and the other isn't anonymous at all because each and every
node can see every single thing you're doing.
>
> One thing I have learnt is never trust anybody who builds an
> argument purely on invective or who makes unsubstantiated claims.
That pretty much describes privacy.LIE in total. The business is built
entirely on unsubstantiated claims, and defended with nothing but
insults.
> I am not suggesting you are doing so, but certainly a few have in
> this thread. They speak volumes for their integrity and
> (un)trustworthiness.
>
>
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-06, 1:14 pm |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Someone Else wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But they *DO* become a central "collection agency" for all your Tor
> traffic, tying it to a paid account and defeating at the very least
> Tor's "revolving exit node" quality. They effectively take you from
> being anonymous to being pseudonymous, which as we know from decades of
> remailer experience is considerably less secure for a number of
> reasons.
>
> Any access of Tor through a proxy, or visa versa, diminishes Tor and
> adds no security in any way. It's a bad thing no matter what, the only
> thing that's open to debate is how bad it is.
>
>
>
>
> This is what separates Cotse and other honest providers from snake oil
> peddlers like privacy.LIE. They simply do not engage in FUD spreading
> in any way shape or form. Cotse in particular was built on a principal
> of honesty and openness, which is why the scammers who refused to
> follow that lead hate them so much. Cotse makes them look bad without
> even trying.
>
> If you have an example of how has lied or spread FUD, please post it.
>
>
>
>
> Chaining proxies and onion routing are two completely different things.
> There's layers of encryption that need peeled away at each link in the
> chain before data can be passed through an onion network that simply
> do not exist in a simple proxy chain. One is anonymous because the
> magic number 3 leaves a node in the middle who is oblivious to
> everything, and the other isn't anonymous at all because each and every
> node can see every single thing you're doing.
>
>
>
>
> That pretty much describes privacy.LIE in total. The business is built
> entirely on unsubstantiated claims, and defended with nothing but
> insults.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, beside the usual ranting of the puppets. Don't forget that Tor
issues this exact message:
"This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity."
Would you take an experimental drug and rely on it completely ? ;-)
Or rather a service which uses established methods to add to your
anonymity and has something to lose like clients and reputation?
==
Eitherway, it's always the same story in this newsgroup, 1 or 2 rotten
sicko's try to promote a service like cotse which logs and sits in land
of the unfree. Any other provider is bad bad baaaaad ! LOL
Bring it on puppets ! Need to have some fun today !
| |
| George Orwell 2007-06-06, 1:14 pm |
| mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
> Well, beside the usual ranting of the puppets. Don't forget that Tor
> issues this exact message:
>
> "This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity."
A wise caveat when dealing with software of any type, that's under
heavy development.
It still doesn't change the fact that Tor is anonymity software using
proved methods to give it's users real anonymity, and Privacy.LIE is a
scamming snake oil service that offers no anonymity at all in spite of
your incessant claims to the contrary.
Nor does it change the fact that if you use Privacy.LIE's snake oil Tor
access you're completely demolishing the real anonymity Tor gives you
by placing total control of everything Tor uses to provide that
anonymity in the hands of an untrusted third party. A third party that
has a documented record of snooping, lying, shilling, tracking,
logging, scamming, and stealing. A third party service owned and
operated by admitted pedophiles, antisemites, perpetrators of bank and
passport fraud, and crooked little weasels who collect and disseminate
personal information out of spite.
>
> Would you take an experimental drug and rely on it completely ? ;-)
No. Nor would I take a drug at all that promoted by liars as a cure for
cancer, when it's obviously nothing but a sugar tablet. At least the
experimental drug is an actual attempt to cure the disease, not a total
waste of time.
> Or rather a service which uses established methods to add to your
Your "established methods" are only one of the ways we know what a liar
you are. They're nothing more or less than any other encrypted
proxy/shell connection offers, but you pretend they're somehow
"special" even though you can't seem to keep your own SSL certs up do
date like a normally competent system administrator would.
> anonymity and has something to lose like clients and reputation?
Privacy.LIE has neither clients, nor any significant reputation to
lose. In fact, a loss of the reputation they have now may help remedy
the former problem, but I see even an nym hop hasn't allowed you to
make the transition into something that resembles an honest, upright
spokesperson.
Same shit, different nym. 
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-06, 1:14 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
> mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> A wise caveat when dealing with software of any type, that's under
> heavy development.
>
> It still doesn't change the fact that Tor is anonymity software using
> proved methods to give it's users real anonymity, and Privacy.LIE is a
> scamming snake oil service that offers no anonymity at all in spite of
> your incessant claims to the contrary.
>
> Nor does it change the fact that if you use Privacy.LIE's snake oil Tor
> access you're completely demolishing the real anonymity Tor gives you
> by placing total control of everything Tor uses to provide that
> anonymity in the hands of an untrusted third party. A third party that
> has a documented record of snooping, lying, shilling, tracking,
> logging, scamming, and stealing. A third party service owned and
> operated by admitted pedophiles, antisemites, perpetrators of bank and
> passport fraud, and crooked little weasels who collect and disseminate
> personal information out of spite.
>
>
>
>
> No. Nor would I take a drug at all that promoted by liars as a cure for
> cancer, when it's obviously nothing but a sugar tablet. At least the
> experimental drug is an actual attempt to cure the disease, not a total
> waste of time.
>
>
>
>
> Your "established methods" are only one of the ways we know what a liar
> you are. They're nothing more or less than any other encrypted
> proxy/shell connection offers, but you pretend they're somehow
> "special" even though you can't seem to keep your own SSL certs up do
> date like a normally competent system administrator would.
>
>
>
>
> Privacy.LIE has neither clients, nor any significant reputation to
> lose. In fact, a loss of the reputation they have now may help remedy
> the former problem, but I see even an nym hop hasn't allowed you to
> make the transition into something that resembles an honest, upright
> spokesperson.
>
> Same shit, different nym.
>
Ah XXXX off you puppet, go back to your logging service like cotse.net
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-10, 1:13 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 30 Apr 2007 05:05:19 -0700, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>:I posted a message to 7 groups initially on April 10 detailing my
>:experiences with privacy.li and how they scammed me. I'm not 100%
>:confident that this message is strictly on-topic in all of these
>:groups, but I'm trying my best. They were all suggested as privacy
>:related groups by Google Groups. I'm not trying to spam anyone. I post
>:relatively infrequently, so I don't think this should be a burden to
>:anyone.
<snipped>
>:Beware
I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is concerned. I
have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the excellent
service I have received. However, several things are of major
concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
1. He is still enthusiastically recommending e-Gold as the best way to
trade electronic currency. This is nonsense and he must surely know it.
e_Gold has been compromised by the FBI and many accounts closed
and the funds taken over the by US Government. All other accounts
are subject to FBI scrutiny and due diligence needs to be exercised if
you own such an account. It is now difficult or impossible to recover
your e-Gold without a significant loss. I am certain that Adminus/John
or whoever runs the business is aware of this, but for whatever reason
ignores this unpalatable fact.
2. He is still using an older version of my Faq to boost his business.
Later ones take a far more cautious view of Privacy.Li. I intend to
update my Faq forthwith with a view to removing him altogether. In
fact I may decide to publicise my distrust of his business dealings.
3. Despite many Emails to Privacy.Li I have received no response. I
know from correspondence from other groups, there are several others
who are having exactly the same bother. Many are reporting loss of
money on route to Privacy.Li. I believe some money may have gone
astray because one of his employees was pocketing it. But that is
still his responsibility, not the senders. However, he will not accept
responsibility for these losses, if he responds to the claimants Emails,
at all that is. Most of the time, he seems to be simply ignoring people.
This is appalling for a business that claims it has a reputation.
Your post just reinforces my own experiences.
I also have strong reservations about him claiming to be running a Tor
server in tandem with his privacy service. I have not checked this
out, but if he is doubling up using the SSH tunnelling servers for Tor
and if he is minded to bother to investigate, he may very well be able to
accurately deduce the true ISP address of the user, despite the use of
Tor by that user to try and hide his ISP addrress from Privacy.Li. In
other words, he should either run a free Tor server, or run a paid for
private anon service. Not both. He cannot run with the hare and hunt
with the hounds, one or the other.
In view of all this, I will never use his service again. Nor will I ever
recommend him in the future in my Faq. My apologies for any delay
in updating, but it will be done asap.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRmtxgmToeXEUpganAQO6zAf/dnRN/t9Qz1GaleHJ0r83HKssiJLbyqCE
HCiPx4QY73lN2etunzkb6Et+2MZbfifWr3u7G39H
EJREyVAxWTeOs88VADciCfEw
0fQXSwbxG+GfSY9xpSIGTk3uLRQyF74OzeCaHu5j
u6mRICM6SvReY5tMEJ8+r/4m
BhwU22q98CtJNb3s5aeW9Pi/BWxan0ie+WSn5i9RVZRw+/Xu83UGqxBkiGdNgKEp
nC8yBc+t6hSpJFxECoTntH2XY+EQFT0bbTvGtgfe
EAbgB5q437alZh26FuAfk/3j
w3cBjtArw48RehIf95warut3d+7MtHDttS48nCAv
qDSyP+vMIEuheg==
=eS3M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Anonymous 2007-06-10, 7:13 am |
| In article <jjqm631f3fjl7ig4qs4n814ucjorfos5pj@4ax.com>
Doctor Who<doctor_who@home.ads wrote:
>
>
> ***[6/9/2007 9:41:25 PM] PGP Signature Status: good
<snip>
>
> In view of all this, I will never use his service again. Nor will I ever
> recommend him in the future in my Faq. My apologies for any delay
> in updating, but it will be done asap.
>
> Doctor Who
Whew! Thank you.
| |
| Mike Easter 2007-06-10, 7:13 pm |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is
> concerned.
I think you are referring specifically to this post in this thread:
news:1178084799.518168.171160@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com or
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....aebaddf0?hl=en&
or http://snipr.com/1n9e2
which contains a par referring to the Doctor Who Security and Encryption
FAQ...
<sNip>
yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
> No doubt, he's given a lot of people a lot of valuable information,
> but he's got it all wrong about privacy.li. That FAQ is where I first
> heard about them. No doubt it's a huge source of their business. In
> some of the earlier versions of the FAQ, privacy.li had a more
> prominent role in his advice. He's cut that back considerably in his
> latest versions. I'd like to see him cut them out entirely or possibly
> even leave them in but tell people to avoid them.
</sNip>
Doctor Who wrote:
> I have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the
> excellent service I have received. However, several things are of
major
> concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
<snip>
> In view of all this, I will never use his service again. Nor will I
> ever recommend him in the future in my Faq. My apologies for any
> delay in updating, but it will be done asap.
--
Mike Easter
| |
| Anonymous via Panta Rhei 2007-06-10, 7:14 pm |
| In article <50a7e558e7e0bf3a288c5c36012fc79b@ecn.org>
Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> In article <jjqm631f3fjl7ig4qs4n814ucjorfos5pj@4ax.com>
> Doctor Who<doctor_who@home.ads wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Whew! Thank you.
Of course, Dr. Who is a KOTZE/Gilda puppety-puppet, right?
LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2007 05:05:19 -0700, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is concerned. I
> have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the excellent
> service I have received. However, several things are of major
> concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
<snip bullshit>
you're good for a laugh Dr W000000t
take your faG back in your XXX, who gives a shit when all that basic
info is available since day 1 in the stone age
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| Mike Easter wrote:
> Doctor Who wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you are referring specifically to this post in this thread:
> news:1178084799.518168.171160@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com or
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt....aebaddf0?hl=en&
> or http://snipr.com/1n9e2
>
> which contains a par referring to the Doctor Who Security and Encryption
> FAQ...
>
> <sNip>
> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> </sNip>
>
>
> Doctor Who wrote:
>
>
> major
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
Give me privacy.li anytime over the u.s based cotse services which keep
logs and looking at their policies they'd report you if you let a fart.
no cotse.net logging for me
i have some services from privacy.li and other providers, sorry to
disappoint you but i'm running privacy.li
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:41:25 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
wrote:
>:Doctor Who wrote:
>:> On 30 Apr 2007 05:05:19 -0700, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>:>
>:>
>:>>>:I posted a message to 7 groups initially on April 10 detailing my
>:>>>:experiences with privacy.li and how they scammed me. I'm not 100%
>:>>>:confident that this message is strictly on-topic in all of these
>:>>>:groups, but I'm trying my best. They were all suggested as privacy
>:>>>:related groups by Google Groups. I'm not trying to spam anyone. I
>post :>>>:relatively infrequently, so I don't think this should be a
>burden to
>:>>>:anyone.
>:>
>:>
>:> <snipped>
>:>
>:>>>:Beware
>:>
>:>
>:> I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is concerned.
> I :> have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the excellent
>:> service I have received. However, several things are of major
>:> concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
>:
>:<snip bullshit>
>:
>:you're good for a laugh Dr W000000t
>:
>:take your faG back in your XXX, who gives a shit when all that basic
>:info is available since day 1 in the stone age
Note the headers for the above post:
Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels,
www.privacy.li
X-Complaints-To: admin01@privacy.li
I suspect this came from the admin of privacy.li. If my Faq is such
a pain, why are you publicising it? Please remove it forthwith. I
hereby request and require that you remove my Faq from your
Website forthwith. I revoke any permission I may have given you
in the past to use its contents in any way. I retain all legal rights.
If it is not removed forthwith, I shall mention within the latest version
my total suspicion of your site and further warn my readers against
its use. Your choice.
I cannot help but notice the speed at which you reacted to my post
and contrast that with the very poor, in fact non-existent responses
to my several Emails. BTW, unknown to you, many of the Emails
were from other users who have also complained to me about this
appalling level of service.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRmynDmToeXEUpganAQPxPwf/bztEU1Jxjokn0yud6QwfxpnFibI0LxHt
x2HCcqhmcs1jomk1KbGUWaWPKxQILfA5RWy9CC7O
KqCB/tV7k5qQ7HF7PIy9NBST
sf3aMndm0MqKH1iSH0Qneysp8J0njPZm6Ncw5/KMwnlf9vEN6zJQnjwnMQOhTdtv
EmOS9Vt4wUESJW9RXke94pIRLSYyU6tK7gcNAIzV
/XZ4mecbvF/KW5/qv7+eX2Rp
Ezy1jowZcgeVX/YvHnp6nON/PMfCQDFeVZXrA3/2+9J9j2vVUzTXRt/c5AKdh8dX
6fCHHoQ+bM5EXqXOmdXv77p4MmO6L6aSa3nUhxJ3
J6dzsnVIATsLmg==
=+z0I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:44:27 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
wrote:
>:Mike Easter wrote:
>:> Doctor Who wrote:
>:>
>:>>I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is
>:>>concerned.
>:>
>:>
>:> I think you are referring specifically to this post in this thread:
>:> news:1178084799.518168.171160@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com or
>:> http://groups.google.com/group/alt....aebaddf0?hl=en&
>:> or http://snipr.com/1n9e2
>:>
>:> which contains a par referring to the Doctor Who Security and
>Encryption :> FAQ...
>:>
>:> <sNip>
>:> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>:>
>:>>No doubt, he's given a lot of people a lot of valuable information,
>:>>but he's got it all wrong about privacy.li. That FAQ is where I first
>:>>heard about them. No doubt it's a huge source of their business. In
>:>>some of the earlier versions of the FAQ, privacy.li had a more
>:>>prominent role in his advice. He's cut that back considerably in his
>:>>latest versions. I'd like to see him cut them out entirely or possibly
>:>>even leave them in but tell people to avoid them.
>:>
>:> </sNip>
That is very likely to happen. I am especially concerned by the people
who have contacted me to complain about privacy.li. I have wanted to
give him the benefit of the doubt, but to test it out for myself, I have
been
sending him Emails for several weeks which have never yet been
answered. Of course it might be that every single Email was lost. . . .
>:>
>:> Doctor Who wrote:
>:>
>:>>I have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the
>:>>excellent service I have received. However, several things are of
>:>
>:> major
>:>
>:>>concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
>:>
>:>
>:> <snip>
>:>
>:>>In view of all this, I will never use his service again. Nor will I
>:>>ever recommend him in the future in my Faq. My apologies for any
>:>>delay in updating, but it will be done asap.
>:>
>:>
>:>
>:>
>:
>:
>:Give me privacy.li anytime over the u.s based cotse services which keep
>:logs and looking at their policies they'd report you if you let a fart.
>:
>:
>:no cotse.net logging for me
>:
>:i have some services from privacy.li and other providers, sorry to
>:disappoint you but i'm running privacy.li
But you do log. You have also outed one of your own customers,
without any pressure from any legal entity. You did it out of spite
and irritation at his posts. This speaks volumes about your
integrity. What value can we users put in your claims for guarding
our privacy when you do this on a whim?
How can you expect others to believe you do not keep
logs when you have published such info.
What is the value of your word in such circumstances?
As I have stated in my other post in this thread, unless you remove
my Faq from your Website forthwith, I shall include a warning
about your site and what I consider your doubtful integrity when I
revise it in the very near future.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRmyq4GToeXEUpganAQNRWQf/W0SpTcv7iEVn+9ZQH3wn+WVEVLC1SCgG
DTvoxwo6kzB8nvKOs2DuKXmb0/iYuQ5ebQGrtnLTS+W23AbpmLmvmbMrOKe+wjtk
kOnVAp7PWR0Q0yX1q7mtkGZAxLZk6xh6EUoa/yvkpfLEFkNyyJv00e5Qz+sHy56G
dnFSPQoSdjUtusjAOwnwV4qkHcjzSBtJy76lMrkI
lUWUADNl3mbsgxRaFE7YFohk
oTvoEHpL9nZ97T+DPc7xvyskt+A4cY3+zISQBxpG
frCedPI4GhwUfUWSHoSkDSL/
Ih9xcwsAUOEpg55WV/BEXlvt1im2SRm7GDqfvvYDlChrixvbqAlqVA==
=pjSC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Anonymous Sender 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| > Website forthwith. I revoke any permission I may have given you
> in the past to use its contents in any way. I retain all legal rights.
>
> If it is not removed forthwith, I shall mention within the latest version
> my total suspicion of your site and further warn my readers against
> its use. Your choice.
Legally speaking, I'm really not sure you can revoke a license
retrospectivly (sp?).
You can update it and not allow future use of your faqs, but I really
don't see how you can stop them using past versions where they had
permission.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| In article <466c9778$0$4796$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>
mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>
> Doctor Who wrote:
>
> <snip bullshit>
>
> you're good for a laugh Dr W000000t
>
> take your faG back in your XXX, who gives a shit when all that basic
> info is available since day 1 in the stone age
This is just too good. Dr. Who's FAQ has been the leading source of "basic
info" for at least ten years and countless hours of experience and
revision. I guess that really would make it going back to the stone age.
There are few interested people who haven't relied on his advice,
appreciated his efforts over the years and respected his opinions.
So go ahead, throw your usual snit-fits. We've been waiting for this
moment.
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:16:18 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
>:> Website forthwith. I revoke any permission I may have given you
>:> in the past to use its contents in any way. I retain all legal
>rights. :>
>:> If it is not removed forthwith, I shall mention within the latest
>version :> my total suspicion of your site and further warn my readers
>against
>:> its use. Your choice.
>:
>:Legally speaking, I'm really not sure you can revoke a license
>:retrospectivly (sp?).
>:
>:You can update it and not allow future use of your faqs, but I really
>:don't see how you can stop them using past versions where they had
>:permission.
Which county's laws are you relying on? This is the World Wide Web.
Obviously I cannot serve a writ to enforce anything. But I can use a
threat to publish in later Faqs any info I have about the site, together
with a warning not to use that site. I intend to do just that unless I
see my older revision has been removed. Nobody can deny my
my right to include or exclude with or without reasons any Website
I choose. I have chosen not to recommend Privacy.Li. I will
stand by that decision. Whether I go further is down to the admin
of Privacy.Li.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRmzBA2ToeXEUpganAQOxowf+LS9k8QpV
xkk+h/pQ8pYDymWBdgP1Aq9s
/PtLAc9vKeVsEPEpvHk+eWHSUe/0i3k0cgzQXwECReZ6dGlGNv3seGkWFHWFWQNK
rhixxQfFaoY2DTEVPRREd7Gc7O2xuv8y4L0D3K5D
qU4zhb4MNKB6kMRWq5MFMTMl
8VS8b2irjKhDqKCx/ 01Pyt0jYxtRLmuQoc7ih2121TFDqBLRIG2BhnccI
HeMRVZB
+WvrKa0lAE44MNb89nOD9vff8zPJ1w0FOL0ZBtB/P0l+2wjtiwq1tVdI5mDgvrT+
lU/ OKIkcR8FoBk4y7zA7NlIplu8ANZ09pWaCEQ0vX3G
7Gf35iYvFfQ==
=8Vyx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| Anonymous Sender wrote:
>
> Legally speaking, I'm really not sure you can revoke a license
> retrospectivly (sp?).
>
> You can update it and not allow future use of your faqs, but I really
> don't see how you can stop them using past versions where they had
> permission.
I say let the slimy XXXXers use older versions if they want. It's another
self inflicted gunshot wound in feet that already look like hamburger.
Something more we can all point to as examples of what a shitstain on the
underwear of the Internet privacy.LIE really is.
Personally, I find it hilarious that Dr. Who took so much heat for
defending the cocksuckers in the past, and now they turned on him like the
cowardly XXXXs they are for no reason at all besides their own bullshit
making them look bad.
And all the while Google keeps ranking pages slamming privacy.LIE higher
and higher. The XXXXers are toast. Dead. We won. We proved that Adem is
such an ignorant twat he can't even hide behind pseudonyms and bullshit
business transfers.
I feel proud to be part of that to be real honest.
| |
| George Orwell 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> In article <466c9778$0$4796$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>
> mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>
> This is just too good. Dr. Who's FAQ has been the leading source of "basic
> info" for at least ten years and countless hours of experience and
> revision. I guess that really would make it going back to the stone age.
> There are few interested people who haven't relied on his advice,
> appreciated his efforts over the years and respected his opinions.
>
> So go ahead, throw your usual snit-fits. We've been waiting for this
> moment.
>
>
Amen to that brother!
This is a GLORIOUS moment in the Privacy.LIE saga. Their #1 proponent
finally comes around to the reality of what scamming assholes they really
are.
Congratulations Dr. Who, you've boosted your street cred by a factor of
100 or so.
You might consider posting your FAQ in alt.privacy groups again too, just
to set the record straight about what the scammers have on their snake oil
peddler web site and what you actually have to say. I don't think once or
twice a month would be too much, with updates for revisions.
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:16:18 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
> <anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which county's laws are you relying on? This is the World Wide Web.
> Obviously I cannot serve a writ to enforce anything. But I can use a
> threat to publish in later Faqs any info I have about the site, together
Actually, they plainly state the following:
"We always post the latest and freshest FAQ of our friend Dr WHo here"
If, as you say, they're posting an older version because it's more
complimentary of their snake oil service, they're blatantly
misrepresenting you and you probably do have some grounds from which to
initiate legal action.
But are they really worth the trouble at this point? Their reputation is
in the toilet, and their business is so screwed by now that they can't even
be bothered to attend to the day to day maintenance of their own sites.
Publicize a current version with a warning about their dubious character,
maybe with a link to the old version they're using and an explanation of
why they're using it. Use their own stupidity against them, just like
everyone else does. ;-)
| |
| George Orwell 2007-06-11, 1:13 am |
| Anonymous via Panta Rhei wrote:
> In article <50a7e558e7e0bf3a288c5c36012fc79b@ecn.org>
> Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> Of course, Dr. Who is a KOTZE/Gilda puppety-puppet, right?
> LOL
Funnier than hell, ain't it? The privacy.LIE puppets have outdone
themselves this time. An all new low.
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-06-11, 7:13 am |
| anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it wrote:
> And all the while Google keeps ranking pages slamming privacy.LIE higher
> and higher. The XXXXers are toast. Dead. We won.
>
No, everybody lost. The noise over this chased out a lot of people.
The group has been nothing but a mess as a result. Privacy.li worked
hard to make it look like some kind of war with Cotse because they were
the first service not to make impossible claims and to be frank with
their users, making privacy.li look bad. By making it look like some
war they were able to cloud the real issues and chase many from the
group. There hasn't been much useful in this group since.
Even Steve Geilda finally got fed up and left and besides being one of
the people I found worth reading and the person who brought these
impossible claims to light by starting Cotse based upon openness, I
remember him writing and releasing useful tools. His web interface,
ctunnel, and his news2remail. News2remail was the first package to
allow posting to the remailers from any news reader and it was open
source and easy to use. Have you seen any updates to any of these
applications? The only application that does what news2remail did now
is Omnimix and the author refuses to release the source. When Steve
left he just abandoned all of them, that's not a win.
He wasn't the only one to leave, many regulars left. There used to be
more intelligent debates here, more valuable information traded. This
group has been nothing but a mess since privacy.li decided they could
put everything in doubt with their extensive trolling and making it look
like some interservice war. There is no winner here.
| |
| Fritz Wuehler 2007-06-11, 7:13 am |
| No Archive removed.
In article <jjqm631f3fjl7ig4qs4n814ucjorfos5pj@4ax.com>
Doctor Who<doctor_who@home.ads wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 30 Apr 2007 05:05:19 -0700, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>:I posted a message to 7 groups initially on April 10 detailing my
>:experiences with privacy.li and how they scammed me. I'm not 100%
>:confident that this message is strictly on-topic in all of these
>:groups, but I'm trying my best. They were all suggested as privacy
>:related groups by Google Groups. I'm not trying to spam anyone. I post
>:relatively infrequently, so I don't think this should be a burden to
>:anyone.
<snipped>
>:Beware
I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is concerned. I
have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the excellent
service I have received. However, several things are of major
concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
1. He is still enthusiastically recommending e-Gold as the best way to
trade electronic currency. This is nonsense and he must surely know it.
e_Gold has been compromised by the FBI and many accounts closed
and the funds taken over the by US Government. All other accounts
are subject to FBI scrutiny and due diligence needs to be exercised if
you own such an account. It is now difficult or impossible to recover
your e-Gold without a significant loss. I am certain that Adminus/John
or whoever runs the business is aware of this, but for whatever reason
ignores this unpalatable fact.
2. He is still using an older version of my Faq to boost his business.
Later ones take a far more cautious view of Privacy.Li. I intend to
update my Faq forthwith with a view to removing him altogether. In
fact I may decide to publicise my distrust of his business dealings.
3. Despite many Emails to Privacy.Li I have received no response. I
know from correspondence from other groups, there are several others
who are having exactly the same bother. Many are reporting loss of
money on route to Privacy.Li. I believe some money may have gone
astray because one of his employees was pocketing it. But that is
still his responsibility, not the senders. However, he will not accept
responsibility for these losses, if he responds to the claimants Emails,
at all that is. Most of the time, he seems to be simply ignoring people.
This is appalling for a business that claims it has a reputation.
Your post just reinforces my own experiences.
I also have strong reservations about him claiming to be running a Tor
server in tandem with his privacy service. I have not checked this
out, but if he is doubling up using the SSH tunnelling servers for Tor
and if he is minded to bother to investigate, he may very well be able to
accurately deduce the true ISP address of the user, despite the use of
Tor by that user to try and hide his ISP addrress from Privacy.Li. In
other words, he should either run a free Tor server, or run a paid for
private anon service. Not both. He cannot run with the hare and hunt
with the hounds, one or the other.
In view of all this, I will never use his service again. Nor will I ever
recommend him in the future in my Faq. My apologies for any delay
in updating, but it will be done asap.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRmtxgmToeXEUpganAQO6zAf/dnRN/t9Qz1GaleHJ0r83HKssiJLbyqCE
HCiPx4QY73lN2etunzkb6Et+2MZbfifWr3u7G39H
EJREyVAxWTeOs88VADciCfEw
0fQXSwbxG+GfSY9xpSIGTk3uLRQyF74OzeCaHu5j
u6mRICM6SvReY5tMEJ8+r/4m
BhwU22q98CtJNb3s5aeW9Pi/BWxan0ie+WSn5i9RVZRw+/Xu83UGqxBkiGdNgKEp
nC8yBc+t6hSpJFxECoTntH2XY+EQFT0bbTvGtgfe
EAbgB5q437alZh26FuAfk/3j
w3cBjtArw48RehIf95warut3d+7MtHDttS48nCAv
qDSyP+vMIEuheg==
=eS3M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Non scrivetemi 2007-06-11, 1:14 pm |
| Nomen Nescio wrote:
> anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it wrote:
>
> No, everybody lost. The noise over this chased out a lot of people.
> The group has been nothing but a mess as a result. Privacy.li worked
I don't believe that for a second. Unless you're new here you'd realize
that if anyone was left standing after the Frog/flood era there's no way
the petty quibbling between Adem and his puppets and the rest of the
privacy community would have driven them away. And every once in a while
we see that the old guard are still there, as well as hear from "new guard"
members.
> hard to make it look like some kind of war with Cotse because they were
"They" didn't do a very good job of it. Nobody with the IQ of a golf ball
bought any of it.
> the first service not to make impossible claims and to be frank with
> their users, making privacy.li look bad. By making it look like some
> war they were able to cloud the real issues and chase many from the
> group. There hasn't been much useful in this group since.
Actually this group maintains a pretty steady level of usefulness, and has
almost since it's creation. The noise level rises and falls, but it's
pretty easy to filter and doesn't drown the signal because the sort of
people patronizing this group are accustomed to it and know how to deal
with it.
>
> Even Steve Geilda finally got fed up and left and besides being one of
> the people I found worth reading and the person who brought these
> impossible claims to light by starting Cotse based upon openness, I
Steve never really did contribute much to this group. He has other
concerns. And his decision to leave had almost nothing at all to do with
privacy.lie, it was prompted by attacks against him from other vectors.
> remember him writing and releasing useful tools. His web interface,
> ctunnel, and his news2remail. News2remail was the first package to
> allow posting to the remailers from any news reader and it was open
Actually, no it wasn't, but that's irrelevant.
> source and easy to use. Have you seen any updates to any of these
> applications? The only application that does what news2remail did now
> is Omnimix and the author refuses to release the source. When Steve
> left he just abandoned all of them, that's not a win.
Steve abandoned N2R because nobody was interested. Just like "Sofaking".
The only one stupid enough to still believe there's any real market for
that sort of thing is a retarded eel.
>
> He wasn't the only one to leave, many regulars left. There used to be
> more intelligent debates here, more valuable information traded. This
> group has been nothing but a mess since privacy.li decided they could
> put everything in doubt with their extensive trolling and making it look
> like some interservice war. There is no winner here.
Like I said, unless you're new here you know the privacy.lie bullshit was
actually mundane in comparison the what other people have done to destroy
the privacy newsgroups. For a while they were completely unusable without
some pretty involved filtering. Ask Zax, he offered the groups in a more
palatable form through most of it.
Doing away with the current crapola is laughably easy. Just filter
anything from privacy.lie, or that has privacy.lie in it.
| |
| Adminus 2007-06-11, 1:14 pm |
|
Guys, this is all utter nonsense.
I have been SILENTLY providing shell accounts, offshore hosting, vpn's,
anonymous domains, etc. since 1997 (yes, that's 10 years in business!)
Some time in 2001 DrWho approached me, he liked my offshore approach and
included me in his FAQ. That was also the moment I learned about this
newsgroup and the BRUTAL SLAUGHTER OF DRWHO by Jeffrey Bloss.
Drwho was a serious effort to help the newcomer who bought a windoze box
to get some ideas about security and privacy/anonymity.
But it was always attacked by the same 2-3 people with an agenda. I got
attacked, too, which resulted in withdrawing from this newsgroup.
Today, in 2007, I still have to state: newsgroups are abused by people
with an agenda to distribute FUD. Thankfully, not so many people read
these groups.
I have over 12000 clients of which maybe less than 2% know and read
newsgroups.
There are only 17.2% of the world population online yet, the next 50%
will be even easier to manipulate, cause they are less smart.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
17.2% equals 1.133.000.000 people, of which i serve 12000 - what a niche
market! (0.001059%)
And I am sure doubling my percentage will be achieved w/o this newsgroup!
Fare well
Adminus
www.privacy.li
PS: paypalsucks.com, ebaysucks.com, etc. ... and they are all going
strong! Somebody wants to do a privacysucks.li???
ROFL
Non scrivetemi wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>
> I don't believe that for a second. Unless you're new here you'd realize
> that if anyone was left standing after the Frog/flood era there's no way
> the petty quibbling between Adem and his puppets and the rest of the
> privacy community would have driven them away. And every once in a while
> we see that the old guard are still there, as well as hear from "new guard"
> members.
>
>
> "They" didn't do a very good job of it. Nobody with the IQ of a golf ball
> bought any of it.
>
>
> Actually this group maintains a pretty steady level of usefulness, and has
> almost since it's creation. The noise level rises and falls, but it's
> pretty easy to filter and doesn't drown the signal because the sort of
> people patronizing this group are accustomed to it and know how to deal
> with it.
>
>
> Steve never really did contribute much to this group. He has other
> concerns. And his decision to leave had almost nothing at all to do with
> privacy.lie, it was prompted by attacks against him from other vectors.
>
>
> Actually, no it wasn't, but that's irrelevant.
>
>
> Steve abandoned N2R because nobody was interested. Just like "Sofaking".
> The only one stupid enough to still believe there's any real market for
> that sort of thing is a retarded eel.
>
>
> Like I said, unless you're new here you know the privacy.lie bullshit was
> actually mundane in comparison the what other people have done to destroy
> the privacy newsgroups. For a while they were completely unusable without
> some pretty involved filtering. Ask Zax, he offered the groups in a more
> palatable form through most of it.
>
> Doing away with the current crapola is laughably easy. Just filter
> anything from privacy.lie, or that has privacy.lie in it.
>
| |
| errata6170@mypacks.net 2007-06-11, 1:14 pm |
| In article < e21735a4b4970d866f45edc1ef8ddc07@mixmast
er.it>,
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> writes:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
You kiddies wanna tell me what this nonsense has to do with PGP or
SSH and discussions thereof? I think you need to go tell your mommies they
want you and leave the adults alone. Good little boys and girls should
be seen, not heard, and we're hearing far too much from you.
| |
| George Orwell 2007-06-11, 1:14 pm |
| The world's biggest XXXXXXX Adminus lied:
> Guys, this is all utter nonsense.
>
> I have been SILENTLY providing shell accounts, offshore hosting, vpn's,
> anonymous domains, etc. since 1997 (yes, that's 10 years in business!)
You've been stealing money, promoting bank scams, tracking users, lying
about your services, attacking Jews, and peddling kiddie porn for a LOT
longer than that bucko.
People are getting wise to your scam. More and more every day. Most of it
because of they way you act. You're your own worst enemy. You do more
damage than Dr. Who, Schneier, Bloss, Silverstein, or any of the dozens of
anonymous people who regularly spank you ever could.
Keep up the good work! :-)
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-06-11, 1:14 pm |
| Adminus wrote:
> Guys, this is all utter nonsense.
>
> I have been SILENTLY providing shell accounts, offshore hosting, vpn's,
> anonymous domains, etc. since 1997 (yes, that's 10 years in business!)
You haven't been silently doing anything at all, you only have delusions
of being hidden in the shadows. We all know exactly who, and what, you
really are.
>
> Some time in 2001 DrWho approached me, he liked my offshore approach and
> included me in his FAQ. That was also the moment I learned about this
> newsgroup and the BRUTAL SLAUGHTER OF DRWHO by Jeffrey Bloss.
Indeed. Mr. Bloss had some good points but presented them poorly, and
reaped his own rewards. One of his more notable accomplishments was
dismembering you and your lies, which is why you still bring up his name
to this day. If he's reading, I'm sure he's proud of that. I know I would
be if I left such an indellible boot print on the XXX of a fukhead like
you.
Now Dr. Who has finally come around, and your sock puppets go on the
attack with their anal accusations while your "Adminus" persona makes
pathetic attempts to appear respectable.
Business as usual. Your so called 10 year history in this incarnation is
absolutely full of people providing examples of your criminality and lies,
studied assessments of your bullshit claims, and an unceasing stream of
the exact same tactics on your part. The longevity you try and hold up as
some sort of proof of legitimacy is one of the most sterling examples of
why you're known as the privacy community's most despised and derided
member.
>
> Drwho was a serious effort to help the newcomer who bought a windoze box
> to get some ideas about security and privacy/anonymity.
>
> But it was always attacked by the same 2-3 people with an agenda. I got
> attacked, too, which resulted in withdrawing from this newsgroup.
Bullshit. Nobody believes you left, and numerous people have provided
incontrovertible evidence that you haven't. Your own illiteracy and stupid
mistakes gave you away a very long time ago, and your continued denials
only give more evidence of your lack of morals.
>
> Today, in 2007, I still have to state: newsgroups are abused by people
> with an agenda to distribute FUD. Thankfully, not so many people read
> these groups.
You wish not so many people read this group, or Bruce Schneier's blog, or
any of the numerous sites and references that accurately detail your
history both before and after your bullshit "business sale".
Fact is, criminal, more and more people are reading that message and
taking it to heart. Your plans to put up enough chafe that the radar can't
pinpoint you have failed miserably.
>
> I have over 12000 clients of which maybe less than 2% know and read
> newsgroups.
You have no such thing. YOu have at most 100 customers, and 90% of those
are you. You don't even have enough business to afford current encryption
certificates for God's sake.
>
> There are only 17.2% of the world population online yet, the next 50%
> will be even easier to manipulate, cause they are less smart.
> http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
>
> 17.2% equals 1.133.000.000 people, of which i serve 12000 - what a niche
> market! (0.001059%)
>
> And I am sure doubling my percentage will be achieved w/o this newsgroup!
>
> Fare well
Have a nice day, you lying snake.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Adminus
> www.privacy.li
>
> PS: paypalsucks.com, ebaysucks.com, etc. ... and they are all going
> strong! Somebody wants to do a privacysucks.li???
> ROFL
>
>
>
>
> Non scrivetemi wrote:
>
| |
| Adminus 2007-06-11, 1:14 pm |
|
It;s because of people like you why I love my business.
It shows there is an endless supply of idiots and blinds out there.
And with your hate and envy demonstrated so far, it only shows how
powerless you are. Jeffrey, go beat up your wife, or find a real job.
George Orwell wrote:
> The world's biggest XXXXXXX Adminus lied:
>
>
> You've been stealing money, promoting bank scams, tracking users, lying
> about your services, attacking Jews, and peddling kiddie porn for a LOT
> longer than that bucko.
>
> People are getting wise to your scam. More and more every day. Most of it
> because of they way you act. You're your own worst enemy. You do more
> damage than Dr. Who, Schneier, Bloss, Silverstein, or any of the dozens of
> anonymous people who regularly spank you ever could.
>
> Keep up the good work! :-)
>
| |
| Non scrivetemi 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Adminus wrote:
> It;s because of people like you why I love my business.
Please, your pathetic "I meant to do that" ruse is no less transparent
than your other lies. The people who kick your sorry behind across Usenet
are so much of a problem in your little world you've spent years giving
your very best, trying to discredit them, win a point or two, or just
scare them into going away.
You've failed at every turn. Your own reputation is runny shit now. The
most influential minds in the game scoff at you openly, and in here,
you're an even bigger joke because we don't have reputations to worry
about at all. We can beat you senseless with impunity where people like
Schneier have to be satisfied with witty quips and letting you make an XXX
of yourself in their forums. Something you're only too eager to do.
> It shows there is an endless supply of idiots and blinds out there.
> And with your hate and envy demonstrated so far, it only shows how
> powerless you are. Jeffrey, go beat up your wife, or find a real job.
And there we see another fine example of your desperation. You mistakenly
believe that if you happen to guess the identity of one of your tormentors
you might intimidate them into giving you a bit of peace.
You're not that smart, or that lucky. All you're going to do is get XXXXX
slapped over more of your pathetic accusations too. So if you have any
proof at all that I'm anyone you even know by name, then out with it liar.
Otherwise.....
***SPANK!!***
<laugh>
*chuckle*
ROTFL!
;-)
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:44:27 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That is very likely to happen. I am especially concerned by the people
> who have contacted me to complain about privacy.li. I have wanted to
> give him the benefit of the doubt, but to test it out for myself, I have
> been
> sending him Emails for several weeks which have never yet been
> answered. Of course it might be that every single Email was lost. . . .
>
>
>
>
> But you do log. You have also outed one of your own customers,
> without any pressure from any legal entity. You did it out of spite
> and irritation at his posts. This speaks volumes about your
Dr Wh000t, you must be one helluva dumb piece of redneck, do you really
think i'm the owner of privacy.li just because i use there services ?
Also, who are you anyway ? you could be any one of the puppets trying to
promote the cotse logging service in the middle of the u.s.
Also, can you for 100 % proof one of the privacy.li owners outed one of
their sick ex-customers ? Just because of they tell you this and/or post
from the news service of privacy.li it doesn't mean it's true.
You should know better, and i used to like your faq even if it was all
public info.
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> In article <466c9778$0$4796$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>
> mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is just too good. Dr. Who's FAQ has been the leading source of "basic
> info" for at least ten years and countless hours of experience and
> revision. I guess that really would make it going back to the stone age.
> There are few interested people who haven't relied on his advice,
> appreciated his efforts over the years and respected his opinions.
>
> So go ahead, throw your usual snit-fits. We've been waiting for this
> moment.
>
>
>
sure, now go back to cotse and get your life logged and delivered to
uncle sam ;-)
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:16:18 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
> <anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Which county's laws are you relying on? This is the World Wide Web.
> Obviously I cannot serve a writ to enforce anything. But I can use a
> threat to publish in later Faqs any info I have about the site, together
> with a warning not to use that site. I intend to do just that unless I
> see my older revision has been removed. Nobody can deny my
> my right to include or exclude with or without reasons any Website
> I choose. I have chosen not to recommend Privacy.Li. I will
> stand by that decision. Whether I go further is down to the admin
> of Privacy.Li.
>
please give us a break you loser, take your faggy faq back in that
smelleh cave of yours. Let people know that the shit you write is public
and copied without permission from many sites.
Start with yourself before thinking of others you lamer (i bet you don't
know what lamer means in the good ol'days you dumb cocksucking whore)
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Anonymous Sender wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I say let the slimy XXXXers use older versions if they want. It's another
> self inflicted gunshot wound in feet that already look like hamburger.
> Something more we can all point to as examples of what a shitstain on the
> underwear of the Internet privacy.LIE really is.
<snip pedo bullshit>
Stay away from kids you sick pervert
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Amen to that brother!
>
> This is a GLORIOUS moment in the Privacy.LIE saga. Their #1 proponent
> finally comes around to the reality of what scamming assholes they really
> are.
>
> Congratulations Dr. Who, you've boosted your street cred by a factor of
> 100 or so.
I'm also Dr Who btw, just the mini-me version !
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Doctor Who wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Actually, they plainly state the following:
>
> "We always post the latest and freshest FAQ of our friend Dr WHo here"
>
Why don't Dr Wh000t post about cotse ? They log people, they're in the
u.s, their downtime and blaming it on verizon and trying to claim this
newsgroup for themselves ?
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
> Anonymous via Panta Rhei wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Funnier than hell, ain't it? The privacy.LIE puppets have outdone
> themselves this time. An all new low.
>
just like the cotse logging services have outdone themselves, just
reading their Nazi policies scares away innocent people
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Nomen Nescio wrote:
> anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it wrote:
>
>
>
> No, everybody lost. The noise over this chased out a lot of people.
> The group has been nothing but a mess as a result. Privacy.li worked
> hard to make it look like some kind of war with Cotse because they were
> the first service not to make impossible claims and to be frank with
> their users, making privacy.li look bad. By making it look like some
> war they were able to cloud the real issues and chase many from the
> group. There hasn't been much useful in this group since.
>
> Even Steve Geilda finally got fed up and left and besides being one of
> the people I found worth reading and the person who brought these
> impossible claims to light by starting Cotse based upon openness, I
> remember him writing and releasing useful tools. His web interface,
> ctunnel, and his news2remail. News2remail was the first package to
> allow posting to the remailers from any news reader and it was open
> source and easy to use. Have you seen any updates to any of these
> applications? The only application that does what news2remail did now
> is Omnimix and the author refuses to release the source. When Steve
> left he just abandoned all of them, that's not a win.
>
> He wasn't the only one to leave, many regulars left. There used to be
> more intelligent debates here, more valuable information traded. This
> group has been nothing but a mess since privacy.li decided they could
> put everything in doubt with their extensive trolling and making it look
> like some interservice war. There is no winner here.
>
What is that brown stuff hanging from your lips ?
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> No Archive removed.
>
> In article <jjqm631f3fjl7ig4qs4n814ucjorfos5pj@4ax.com>
> Doctor Who<doctor_who@home.ads wrote:
>
> On 30 Apr 2007 05:05:19 -0700, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> I would like to set the record straight as far as my Faq is concerned. I
> have in the past recommended privacy.Li because of the excellent
> service I have received. However, several things are of major
> concern to me and are causing me to revise my opinion.
>
> 1. He is still enthusiastically recommending e-Gold as the best way to
> trade electronic currency. This is nonsense and he must surely know it.
> e_Gold has been compromised by the FBI and many accounts closed
> and the funds taken over the by US Government. All other accounts
> are subject to FBI scrutiny and due diligence needs to be exercised if
> you own such an account. It is now difficult or impossible to recover
> your e-Gold without a significant loss. I am certain that Adminus/John
> or whoever runs the business is aware of this, but for whatever reason
> ignores this unpalatable fact.
>
> 2. He is still using an older version of my Faq to boost his business.
> Later ones take a far more cautious view of Privacy.Li. I intend to
> update my Faq forthwith with a view to removing him altogether. In
> fact I may decide to publicise my distrust of his business dealings.
>
> 3. Despite many Emails to Privacy.Li I have received no response. I
> know from correspondence from other groups, there are several others
> who are having exactly the same bother. Many are reporting loss of
> money on route to Privacy.Li. I believe some money may have gone
> astray because one of his employees was pocketing it. But that is
> still his responsibility, not the senders. However, he will not accept
> responsibility for these losses, if he responds to the claimants Emails,
> at all that is. Most of the time, he seems to be simply ignoring people.
> This is appalling for a business that claims it has a reputation.
>
> Your post just reinforces my own experiences.
>
> I also have strong reservations about him claiming to be running a Tor
> server in tandem with his privacy service. I have not checked this
> out, but if he is doubling up using the SSH tunnelling servers for Tor
> and if he is minded to bother to investigate, he may very well be able to
> accurately deduce the true ISP address of the user, despite the use of
> Tor by that user to try and hide his ISP addrress from Privacy.Li. In
> other words, he should either run a free Tor server, or run a paid for
> private anon service. Not both. He cannot run with the hare and hunt
> with the hounds, one or the other.
>
> In view of all this, I will never use his service again. Nor will I ever
> recommend him in the future in my Faq. My apologies for any delay
> in updating, but it will be done asap.
>
> Doctor Who
>
In view of this I will never believe your faq anymore ! LOL
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Adminus wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Guys, this is all utter nonsense.
>
> I have been SILENTLY providing shell accounts, offshore hosting, vpn's,
> anonymous domains, etc. since 1997 (yes, that's 10 years in business!)
>
> Some time in 2001 DrWho approached me, he liked my offshore approach and
> included me in his FAQ. That was also the moment I learned about this
> newsgroup and the BRUTAL SLAUGHTER OF DRWHO by Jeffrey Bloss.
>
> Drwho was a serious effort to help the newcomer who bought a windoze box
> to get some ideas about security and privacy/anonymity.
>
> But it was always attacked by the same 2-3 people with an agenda. I got
> attacked, too, which resulted in withdrawing from this newsgroup.
>
> Today, in 2007, I still have to state: newsgroups are abused by people
> with an agenda to distribute FUD. Thankfully, not so many people read
> these groups.
>
> I have over 12000 clients of which maybe less than 2% know and read
> newsgroups.
>
> There are only 17.2% of the world population online yet, the next 50%
> will be even easier to manipulate, cause they are less smart.
> http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
>
> 17.2% equals 1.133.000.000 people, of which i serve 12000 - what a niche
> market! (0.001059%)
>
> And I am sure doubling my percentage will be achieved w/o this newsgroup!
>
> Fare well
>
> Adminus
> www.privacy.li
>
> PS: paypalsucks.com, ebaysucks.com, etc. ... and they are all going
> strong! Somebody wants to do a privacysucks.li???
> ROFL
>
>
>
>
> Non scrivetemi wrote:
>
>
Well said, these pathetic losers are sinking together with services like
cotse.net which log the shit out of people. They just can't take it
anymore. This is their last place in the world where they try to defend
their sick ideas.
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
> The world's biggest XXXXXXX Adminus lied:
>
>
>
>
> You've been stealing money, promoting bank scams, tracking users, lying
> about your services, attacking Jews, and peddling kiddie porn for a LOT
> longer than that bucko.
>
> People are getting wise to your scam. More and more every day. Most of it
> because of they way you act. You're your own worst enemy. You do more
> damage than Dr. Who, Schneier, Bloss, Silverstein, or any of the dozens of
> anonymous people who regularly spank you ever could.
>
> Keep up the good work! :-)
>
Well if that means keeping pedo's like you out then he's doing a great
job !
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Adminus wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You haven't been silently doing anything at all, you only have delusions
> of being hidden in the shadows. We all know exactly who, and what, you
> really are.
>
<snip sick pedo comments>
Tell us then who he is, where he is and what he is you dumb lamer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:33:00 -0400, Adminus <known@email> wrote:
>:
>:
>:Guys, this is all utter nonsense.
>:
>:I have been SILENTLY providing shell accounts, offshore hosting, vpn's,
>:anonymous domains, etc. since 1997 (yes, that's 10 years in business!)
>:
>:Some time in 2001 DrWho approached me, he liked my offshore approach and
>:included me in his FAQ. That was also the moment I learned about this
>:newsgroup and the BRUTAL SLAUGHTER OF DRWHO by Jeffrey Bloss.
>:
>:Drwho was a serious effort to help the newcomer who bought a windoze box
>:to get some ideas about security and privacy/anonymity.
>:
>:But it was always attacked by the same 2-3 people with an agenda. I got
>:attacked, too, which resulted in withdrawing from this newsgroup.
>:
>:Today, in 2007, I still have to state: newsgroups are abused by people
>:with an agenda to distribute FUD. Thankfully, not so many people read
>:these groups.
>:
>:I have over 12000 clients of which maybe less than 2% know and read
>:newsgroups.
>:
>:There are only 17.2% of the world population online yet, the next 50%
>:will be even easier to manipulate, cause they are less smart.
>:http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
>:
>:17.2% equals 1.133.000.000 people, of which i serve 12000 - what a niche
>:market! (0.001059%)
>:
>:And I am sure doubling my percentage will be achieved w/o this newsgroup!
>:
>:Fare well
>:
>:Adminus
>:www.privacy.li
<snipped>
Adminus
My reasons for not now recommending your site have already been
explained in this thread. I do feel it was very wrong of you to out a
potential customer because he was a PITA. It might give you some
short term satisfaction, but it suggests that you might do the same to
others. It is the principle that I find so shameful. What is the point
of claiming you never keep logs, if you are prepared to openly publish
personal details of a customer?
Another matter that is of concern is your continuing to strongly recommend
your customers use e-Gold. Why? E-Gold is totally discredited as a
medium for anonymous payments. As I am sure you must be aware it
is now controlled by the FBI. Your Website makes vitriolic remarks about
America, yet you seem to tolerate their legal entity being in control of
the means of payment for your services. Why?
The final straw is the many contacts that tell me they cannot get any
response from you, yet you responded immediately when you felt someone
was attacking you.
I have no personal animosity towards you. I feel life is too short to get
worked up about such things. However, I do request you take down the
early version of my Faq from your site. I have no problem with you
using the latest version when it is published, which is imminent (revision
20.5). Provided it is published complete with its digital sig.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRm29e2ToeXEUpganAQO3PQf/TmL0QUGPcmR6piUvoBzU5K/MJrgd6zYE
DGyZXWT6W7WrzH0lDzpWMPx85bMz/JhgX/h/joikq4piWT0nveWfuEiU1Ri0Bmkn
0S9558b8y3IDhBopCcWQwTK43To8U44F7o5ssIWp
C1DOQR+0HlHO0E+HyFLj3J8h
rxKyBkFQ7jf0NF0x9merkQnAHfUCZC2VKfWjLTnX
3WX14kDB6R8hHio92kZUvvf8
6rZY9U8JdjjAKbhzSRnWM0uZnor6J4U1TDbjXR0+
4M/19rhSTKQnuOVAFclt8gjF
NfHn+bEn/ 7leRQ65XYypwziYYVhNHauI+HSLcpvSubtdyKqNz
k+u9A==
=3l4n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:39:23 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
wrote:
<snipped>
>:Dr Wh000t, you must be one helluva dumb piece of redneck, do you really
>:think i'm the owner of privacy.li just because i use there services ?
>:
>:Also, who are you anyway ? you could be any one of the puppets trying to
>:promote the cotse logging service in the middle of the u.s.
>:
>:Also, can you for 100 % proof one of the privacy.li owners outed one of
>:their sick ex-customers ? Just because of they tell you this and/or post
>:from the news service of privacy.li it doesn't mean it's true.
>:
>:You should know better, and i used to like your faq even if it was all
>:public info.
If you are just a user of privacy.li, why do you feel so threatened when I
point to some obvious shortcomings of the service? As a user, you
should be grateful for having these finding brought to your attention.
After all you are relying on this service to keep you anonymous.
Second, I am not promoting Cotse, or any other paid for privacy service.
I have nothing against Cotse, but neither can I recommend it because I
have never used it.
I believe what I saw written down. The poor sod did not deny the info
that you published about him and God knows it was embarassing enough
for anybody to want to deny it.
In any case, you still have not answered the other items I have mentioned.
Your continuing to recommend e-Gold in the face of it being taken over by
the FBI, or the lack of response to several Emails sent by me and others
over a period of weeks.
As I have said elsewhere, I feel no animosity towards you, but I do feel
you could have handled things far more appropriately. It is for those
reasons that in the future I cannot recommend your service.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRm3B7GToeXEUpganAQNDLAf+MPqXXyF4
i7HKMRqma9/c2Xc1byFrKooh
g+XwHZxNdu4yI8EvWfArfk0eJHDTGdOQ8ejAp5Mi
5y21NFXvv1/942Cbh07G+/Z8
jSphUO76Bx/ vnLwuciUTAdZVA6dOUVIQCb+RzFvXNEa08q1OT58
Z76zBYhCuEmm8
VT/ URwjblS0d0sp54QMa4DbKZcPoERu3xiGJCGXFpxG
zOtqY8u6HWyX6fZ3hgUWc
SUs1SyoifJKn2rQHKkDOaxM2+XDQzM1P56rrULLK
whoBHJJYgsHwOHmk5RrbEHQu
VG7goLPnOSwjnC49x3jQQlBReEpxV/3/dbIiJz3LwOcDpOFDapkIlg==
=5iTN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:42:57 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
wrote:
<snipped>
>:> Which county's laws are you relying on? This is the World Wide Web.
>:> Obviously I cannot serve a writ to enforce anything. But I can use a
>:> threat to publish in later Faqs any info I have about the site,
>together :> with a warning not to use that site. I intend to do just
>that unless I :> see my older revision has been removed. Nobody can
>deny my
>:> my right to include or exclude with or without reasons any Website
>:> I choose. I have chosen not to recommend Privacy.Li. I will
>:> stand by that decision. Whether I go further is down to the admin
>:> of Privacy.Li.
>:>
>:
>:
>:please give us a break you loser, take your faggy faq back in that
>:smelleh cave of yours. Let people know that the shit you write is public
>:and copied without permission from many sites.
>:
>:Start with yourself before thinking of others you lamer (i bet you don't
>:know what lamer means in the good ol'days you dumb cocksucking whore)
I feel sorry for you. The best utterance you can come up with in argument,
is vilification and bile. Why don't you address the questions? In place
of futile posturing and snide and personal remarks which do nothing to
enhance your standing or help your case, why not actually answer the
questions?
Every time someone criticises you or your site, you come back with
bile and personal remarks. I do not understand you. How can we
ever take you seriously as a provider of a secure and anonymous
privacy service when you act like this? It is beyond my understanding.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRm3D6mToeXEUpganAQMu4Af/aEtuo8tQqWDI67ZIPUAe1Hf+18/WNqrL
rAFKzUcw5Jhc1d6vNeM7GCIHEcMx+GlEbPBfjU/q3b5rbRL8soqFh/SQ93Zs4BvI
MbtJNBcOjm/0q5VmTsIoyjZJ7nDkn4LPR0ti/+HXaWiN0v65GpznkUg5meTDqzrv
1cRixia55jznyYnXbYRNIe38eWGhndxxjGzrOAUi
YMEM93U89AIdm218VU2iFFSA
E9bNJSrIUBh7Yto1xcKyTc6KQrDVNDx/GJyolTLHtBPm5/7KMmHBfoucskV6s58c
pPeosaTt+/ 6vwxtUJ3JdTrwpGFxOL7ClnzNGh8TVQ+m2nziGn1
74ng==
=pMXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:39:23 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
> If you are just a user of privacy.li, why do you feel so threatened when I
> point to some obvious shortcomings of the service? As a user, you
> should be grateful for having these finding brought to your attention.
> After all you are relying on this service to keep you anonymous.
>
> Second, I am not promoting Cotse, or any other paid for privacy service.
> I have nothing against Cotse, but neither can I recommend it because I
> have never used it.
>
So what do you have to say about cotse logging people and being with
their couple of servers in the u.s ? Would you recommend that or you
need a kick in the face from uncle sam to tell you they're really in the
u.s ?
Eitherway, sure i'm a user, and not just using their service only. I'm
defending them because they helped me many times when it comes to
privacy, solved many issues and it didn't cost me anything. So they
deserve some one standing up and face the 1 or 2 trolls posting from any
nym around.
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:42:57 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
>
> I feel sorry for you. The best utterance you can come up with in argument,
> is vilification and bile. Why don't you address the questions? In place
> of futile posturing and snide and personal remarks which do nothing to
> enhance your standing or help your case, why not actually answer the
> questions?
<snip horseshit>
yeah yeah, throw some more fancy words around while violating copyright
of many sites and work of people incorporated in your faq. Tell us how
you fast you are with the microsoft intellimouse you're using in
copy/pasting ? I'd believe you !
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Doctor Who wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:42:57 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
>
> I feel sorry for you. The best utterance you can come up with in argument,
> is vilification and bile. Why don't you address the questions? In place
> of futile posturing and snide and personal remarks which do nothing to
> enhance your standing or help your case, why not actually answer the
> questions?
>
<snip horseshit>
yeah yeah, throw some more fancy words around while violating copyright
of many sites and work of people incorporated in your faq. Tell us how
fast you are with your microsoft intellimouse you're using when
copy/pasting ? I'd believe you !
| |
| Doctor Who 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:05:48 +0200, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu>
wrote:
>:Doctor Who wrote:
<snipped>
>:> If you are just a user of privacy.li, why do you feel so threatened when I
>:> point to some obvious shortcomings of the service? As a user, you
>:> should be grateful for having these finding brought to your attention.
>:> After all you are relying on this service to keep you anonymous.
>:>
>:> Second, I am not promoting Cotse, or any other paid for privacy service.
>:> I have nothing against Cotse, but neither can I recommend it because I
>:> have never used it.
>:>
>:
>:So what do you have to say about cotse logging people and being with
>:their couple of servers in the u.s ? Would you recommend that or you
>:need a kick in the face from uncle sam to tell you they're really in the
>:u.s ?
>:
>:Eitherway, sure i'm a user, and not just using their service only. I'm
>:defending them because they helped me many times when it comes to
>:privacy, solved many issues and it didn't cost me anything. So they
>:deserve some one standing up and face the 1 or 2 trolls posting from any
>:nym around.
>:
If Cotse are openly admitting/claiming they log, that is their business.
Any customer signing up under those conditions cannot complain as they have
been given fair warning. Caveat emptor.
Also, I am not in the business of adjudicating on the efficacy of any site.
I only ever recommend those sites and software that I have had personal
experience with. I try to explain in the Faq that it is in no way a
complete treatise on security. My only wish is that some find it useful.
Thank you for updating your site.
Doctor Who
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQEVAwUBRm3SRGToeXEUpganAQNUvQf/WG9BlCwKUTuZybSeaKO9YbJHlnoAZz3x
iXTJEGc2FsdFoiwj1wxEU4YjWcP02Tn+mvT9tr0B
6LmVCu+XhO9RWHy4mLS3JLTU
LTD5sFgFnDKKGXU3+earUurrmix2BzjO3Rzg6lax
UveZyvs8EIy+R+XVA8gmikJd
1+d6cZJCzbctICjrG9MyFqzHIe8YrZMB41eYoGL2
EvLgkrvfIV1cTWYyolrd/zUc
hsL27bgfq0/ o7nXzLCCf1X0YDeIdkXNzDof5RIhn3e49W7tFJuj
oTNpbw0hv1Vhe
wKy+vo+rmGSVKX04pp5NGQCPgZvqrb4E15g1PMTm
ugTaV2OgM4RrOQ==
=8Hhw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>Doctor Who wrote:
>
><snip horseshit>
>
>yeah yeah, throw some more fancy words around while violating copyright
>of many sites and work of people incorporated in your faq. Tell us how
>fast you are with your microsoft intellimouse you're using when
>copy/pasting ? I'd believe you !
Dr Who has credibility. It is something that you earn. You,
bunbun/privacy.liar/fellow traveller66/whatever you nom du plume du jour
is, have utterly destroyed your credibility. You have none.
Dr Who calmly explains why he has taken Privacy.lie out of his faq. You
respond with screeching, screaming, and foul language. Dr Who shakes his
head in disgust and disbelief, and again calmly explains the facts. You go
off on another borderline-insane rant.
You have no credibility. You have done it to yourself. Perhaps you and
eelgash can work something out, but no one else would trust you.
| |
| mrbunbun 2007-06-11, 7:13 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dr Who has credibility. It is something that you earn. You,
> bunbun/privacy.liar/fellow traveller66/whatever you nom du plume du jour
> is, have utterly destroyed your credibility. You have none.
>
> Dr Who calmly explains why he has taken Privacy.lie out of his faq. You
> respond with screeching, screaming, and foul language. Dr Who shakes his
> head in disgust and disbelief, and again calmly explains the facts. You go
> off on another borderline-insane rant.
>
> You have no credibility. You have done it to yourself. Perhaps you and
> eelgash can work something out, but no one else would trust you.
>
>
<PLONK>
| |
| traveller 66 2007-06-12, 1:14 am |
| On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:25:09 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
>
> Dr Who has credibility. It is something that you earn. You,
> bunbun/privacy.liar/fellow traveller66/whatever you nom du plume du jour
> is, have utterly destroyed your credibility. You have none.
>
> Dr Who calmly explains why he has taken Privacy.lie out of his faq. You
> respond with screeching, screaming, and foul language. Dr Who shakes his
> head in disgust and disbelief, and again calmly explains the facts. You go
> off on another borderline-insane rant.
>
> You have no credibility. You have done it to yourself. Perhaps you and
> eelgash can work something out, but no one else would trust you.
Now he has credibility, the last time he posted in here you were spreading
FUD that he was adminus. I guess who you claim people are depends on what
they post, unless it's in favor of Cotse.
| |
| George Orwell 2007-06-12, 1:14 am |
| mrdumbdumb wrote:
> Also, can you for 100 % proof one of the privacy.li owners outed one of
> their sick ex-customers ? Just because of they tell you this and/or post
> from the news service of privacy.li it doesn't mean it's true.
Isn't it an odd coincidence that all the privacy.LIE fans all of a sudden
come up with the same theory that some sort of "forger" posted one of
their customer's IP addresses....
What an idiot.
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-06-12, 1:14 am |
| In article <466dc483$0$8337$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>
mrbunbun <mrbunbun@20847efhcom.edu> wrote:
> Eitherway, sure i'm a user, and not just using their service only. I'm
> defending them because they helped me many times when it comes to
> privacy, solved many issues and it didn't cost me anything. So they
> deserve some one standing up and face the 1 or 2 trolls posting from any
> nym around.
How are you defending them?
Below is your entire output in these groups since 5/30. Name ONE which
actually defends privacy.li or even addresses the issues.
---
<PLONK>
---
I understand that, but sometimes evil like pedo's should not be able to
hide behind ANYONE.
---
<snip horseshit>
yeah yeah, throw some more fancy words around while violating copyright
of many sites and work of people incorporated in your faq. Tell us how
fast you are with your microsoft intellimouse you're using when
copy/pasting ? I'd believe you !
---
keep laughing while cotse logs your XXX and even this newsgroup :-)
---
I wanted to say something, but just know i'm laughing my XXX off you pedo
---
<snip sick pedo comments>
Tell us then who he is, where he is and what he is you dumb lamer
---
Well if that means keeping pedo's like you out then he's doing a great
job !
---
So if it depends on you then people like him, pedo and such are free to
use privacy services without consequences ? You must be a pedo yourself !
---
Well said, these pathetic losers are sinking together with services like
cotse.net which log the shit out of people. They just can't take it
anymore. This is their last place in the world where they try to defend
their sick ideas.
---
In view of this I will never believe your faq anymore ! LOL
---
What is that brown stuff hanging from your lips ?
---
just like the cotse logging services have outdone themselves, just
reading their Nazi policies scares away innocent people
---
Why don't Dr Wh000t post about cotse ? They log people, they're in the
u.s, their downtime and blaming it on verizon and trying to claim this
newsgroup for themselves ?
---
I'm also Dr Who btw, just the mini-me version !
---
<snip pedo bullshit>
Stay away from kids you sick pervert
---
please give us a break you loser, take your faggy faq back in that
smelleh cave of yours. Let people know that the shit you write is public
and copied without permission from many sites.
Start with yourself before thinking of others you lamer (i bet you don't
know what lamer means in the good ol'days you dumb cocksucking whore)
---
sure, now go back to cotse and get your life logged and delivered to
uncle sam ;-)
---
Dr Wh000t, you must be one helluva dumb piece of redneck, do you really
think i'm the owner of privacy.li just because i use there services ?
Also, who are you anyway ? you could be any one of the puppets trying to
promote the cotse logging service in the middle of the u.s.
Also, can you for 100 % proof one of the privacy.li owners outed one of
their sick ex-customers ? Just because of they tell you this and/or post
from the news service of privacy.li it doesn't mean it's true.
You should know better, and i used to like your faq even if it was all
public info.
---
Give me privacy.li anytime over the u.s based cotse services which keep
logs and looking at their policies they'd report you if you let a fart.
no cotse.net logging for me
i have some services from privacy.li and other providers, sorry to
disappoint you but i'm running privacy.li
---
snip bullshit>
you're good for a laugh Dr W000000t
take your faG back in your XXX, who gives a shit when all that basic
info is available since day 1 in the stone age
---
Ah XXXX off you puppet, go back to your logging service like cotse.net
---
Well, beside the usual ranting of the puppets. Don't forget that Tor
issues this exact message:
"This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity."
Would you take an experimental drug and rely on it completely ? ;-)
Or rather a service which uses established methods to add to your
anonymity and has something to lose like clients and reputation?
==
Eitherway, it's always the same story in this newsgroup, 1 or 2 rotten
sicko's try to promote a service like cotse which logs and sits in land
of the unfree. Any other provider is bad bad baaaaad ! LOL
Bring it on puppets ! Need to have some fun today !
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-06-12, 1:15 am |
| nonscrivetemi@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
higher[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't believe that for a second. Unless you're new here you'd realize
> that if anyone was left standing after the Frog/flood era there's no way
> the petty quibbling between Adem and his puppets and the rest of the
> privacy community would have driven them away. And every once in a while
> we see that the old guard are still there, as well as hear from "new
guard"
> members.
Perhaps you are right, I do remember those floods.
>
> Steve never really did contribute much to this group. He has other
> concerns. And his decision to leave had almost nothing at all to do with
> privacy.lie, it was prompted by attacks against him from other vectors.
I sent him a mail to ask, his response "I have better things to do than
read Usenet and all the childish BS that happens there", although that
is a bit paraphrased. He doesn't seem to like usenet much, but I can't
say I blame him, I'm getting a bit tired of it myself.
>
>
> Actually, no it wasn't, but that's irrelevant.
I remember some things that helped you post with Pan, but n2r was the
first one I ever saw that let you read and post from any newsreader
without even thinking about it or doing anything different, even using
Outlook Express. I must have missed the package that allowed this
before it. Do you have the name or link? I'd like to try it, I had no
luck with Omnimix and still use n2r, I didn't know there was any other
options.
>
>
> Steve abandoned N2R because nobody was interested. Just like "Sofaking".
> The only one stupid enough to still believe there's any real market for
> that sort of thing is a retarded eel.
I asked him about this as well and his response "I see it still gets
downloaded, but no one has ever asked for any updates so I assume they
are happy with it as it is". So you are probably right, not a lot of
people want to post from their newsreader. I use it with readfreenews
when at home.
>
>
> Like I said, unless you're new here you know the privacy.lie bullshit was
> actually mundane in comparison the what other people have done to destroy
> the privacy newsgroups. For a while they were completely unusable without
> some pretty involved filtering. Ask Zax, he offered the groups in a more | | |