Anonymous Servers - Scamster site, privacy.li (update)

Author

Scamster site, privacy.li (update)

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-04-30, 7:11 am

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.

There have been some developments since my last post. I was ready to
drop this whole thing until the guys at privacy.li started showing
their true colors.

First of all, they posted my personal information (or at least what
they thought was my information) on alt.privacy and alt.privacy.anon-
server. They posted what they thought was my IP address (turned out to
actually be a Tor exit node) and other information. The link to this
is http://groups.google.com/group/alt....f73504778872530
using Google Groups.

The point of all this is that this is an anonymity/privacy service
that has no reservations about releasing personal info about their
customers. To those who don't understand how a proxy service works, in
essence, the proxy service becomes your surrogate ISP. The sites you
visit don't know who you are but a proxy service like privacy.li knows
exactly who you are and what websites you visit, etc.

They've proven they have no hesitation whatsoever in releasing this
private data. The point is, I was cautious in dealing with them, and
it paid off. If you sign up with them, you may just be putting your
livelihood (or even your life) in their hands. Don't take this
lightly. They've proven how untrustworthy and dishonest (and even
stupid) they are.

The post from the privacy.li admin serves a dual purpose. It not only
shows the character of these people but it shows that I'm not just
making this stuff up. They've, in essence, verified all the details
I've posted as accurate.

This is just the first part of the story. The second part also has to
do with the character of the people at privacy.li. I've posted all of
the details on the TrueCrypt forums ( http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?t=5893
) and on the Wilders Security forums ( http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=994124
). The details are in my 2 posts dated today (April 30, 2007). I just
don't want to repost all the details here. It has to do with how the
guys at privacy.li submitted my e-mail address to numerous scam/spam
sites and about the e-mails I've received due to their actions. I'm
sure they had no way of knowing this, but I can show fairly
conclusively that it was them and only them who could have submitted
my e-mail address to those sites. And the dates of those scam e-mails
correspond very well with the date I first posted on usenet (April 10,
2007). Read the forums for the details.

I will also update my website ( http://screwprivacy.li.freewebspace.com/
) to reflect this new information right after I finish this post. Keep
in mind that this is free web hosting, so I cannot control any
problems that may occur after visiting the site. I don't think there's
anything wrong with the site or any malware. I'm fairly technically
savvy, and I haven't experienced any problems. If you have any
reservations about it, just read the TrueCrypt and Wilders Security
forums. It's the same information (although I would like to boost
traffic to my site to help spread the word).

Thanks for reading. I hope it's clear that I'm being honest in my
posts, and I have nothing to gain by this except for spreading the
word, and helping people avoid the problems I've experienced.

Beware

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-04-30, 1:12 pm

Addendum: My website http://screwprivacy.li.freewebspace.com/ has been
removed for whatever reason. I won't bother to rebuild it, but I will
still provide updates as new developments occur.

Thanks for reading.

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.
>
> There have been some developments since my last post. I was ready to
> drop this whole thing until the guys at privacy.li started showing
> their true colors.
>
> First of all, they posted my personal information (or at least what
> they thought was my information) on alt.privacy and alt.privacy.anon-
> server. They posted what they thought was my IP address (turned out to
> actually be a Tor exit node) and other information. The link to this
> is http://groups.google.com/group/alt....f73504778872530
> using Google Groups.
>
> The point of all this is that this is an anonymity/privacy service
> that has no reservations about releasing personal info about their
> customers. To those who don't understand how a proxy service works, in
> essence, the proxy service becomes your surrogate ISP. The sites you
> visit don't know who you are but a proxy service like privacy.li knows
> exactly who you are and what websites you visit, etc.
>
> They've proven they have no hesitation whatsoever in releasing this
> private data. The point is, I was cautious in dealing with them, and
> it paid off. If you sign up with them, you may just be putting your
> livelihood (or even your life) in their hands. Don't take this
> lightly. They've proven how untrustworthy and dishonest (and even
> stupid) they are.
>
> The post from the privacy.li admin serves a dual purpose. It not only
> shows the character of these people but it shows that I'm not just
> making this stuff up. They've, in essence, verified all the details
> I've posted as accurate.
>
> This is just the first part of the story. The second part also has to
> do with the character of the people at privacy.li. I've posted all of
> the details on the TrueCrypt forums ( http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?t=5893
> ) and on the Wilders Security forums ( http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=994124
> ). The details are in my 2 posts dated today (April 30, 2007). I just
> don't want to repost all the details here. It has to do with how the
> guys at privacy.li submitted my e-mail address to numerous scam/spam
> sites and about the e-mails I've received due to their actions. I'm
> sure they had no way of knowing this, but I can show fairly
> conclusively that it was them and only them who could have submitted
> my e-mail address to those sites. And the dates of those scam e-mails
> correspond very well with the date I first posted on usenet (April 10,
> 2007). Read the forums for the details.
>
> I will also update my website ( http://screwprivacy.li.freewebspace.com/
> ) to reflect this new information right after I finish this post. Keep
> in mind that this is free web hosting, so I cannot control any
> problems that may occur after visiting the site. I don't think there's
> anything wrong with the site or any malware. I'm fairly technically
> savvy, and I haven't experienced any problems. If you have any
> reservations about it, just read the TrueCrypt and Wilders Security
> forums. It's the same information (although I would like to boost
> traffic to my site to help spread the word).
>
> Thanks for reading. I hope it's clear that I'm being honest in my
> posts, and I have nothing to gain by this except for spreading the
> word, and helping people avoid the problems I've experienced.
>
> Beware

nospam

2007-04-30, 1:12 pm

lol, i don't care what is between you and privacy.li, but you're a sick
pervert. Leave the newsgroups clean from your pathetic story.

Why don't you contact a lawyer and make it a case ? if you can find
anyone who will defend someone who gets off on dead corpses and women
getting raped. Or did you forgot to tell that part also on the forums ?

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
> Addendum: My website http://screwprivacy.li.freewebspace.com/ has been
> removed for whatever reason. I won't bother to rebuild it, but I will
> still provide updates as new developments occur.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-04-30, 1:12 pm

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> lol, i don't care what is between you and privacy.li, but you're a sick
> pervert. Leave the newsgroups clean from your pathetic story.

Talk about desperation.

Here's a free clue asswipe: WE care about ripoff scam artists like you,
and WE enjoy watching you XXXX yourself with the things you do like
posting personal information, tracking down users, and the illiterate
trolls you post here.

What we DON'T care about is what you're trying to deflect attention to,
the sites the guy was trying to subscribe to.

> Why don't you contact a lawyer and make it a case ? if you can find
> anyone who will defend someone who gets off on dead corpses and women
> getting raped. Or did you forgot to tell that part also on the forums ?

Yup, desperate. Sure sign they guy has you dead to rights. You're
buggered and you know it, and this is your last ditch effort to try and
make it all just go away.

Sorry about your luck asswipe. Not going to happen.

nospam

2007-04-30, 1:12 pm

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Talk about desperation.
>
> Here's a free clue asswipe: WE care about ripoff scam artists like you,
> and WE enjoy watching you XXXX yourself with the things you do like
> posting personal information, tracking down users, and the illiterate
> trolls you post here.
>
> What we DON'T care about is what you're trying to deflect attention to,
> the sites the guy was trying to subscribe to.
>
>
>
>
> Yup, desperate. Sure sign they guy has you dead to rights. You're
> buggered and you know it, and this is your last ditch effort to try and
> make it all just go away.
>
> Sorry about your luck asswipe. Not going to happen.

>

Well, same old puppet as always, trying to setup people against each
other in this newsgroup. Anyway, as most people visiting this newsgroup
i can say to you: be gone and get a job

traveller 66

2007-04-30, 7:12 pm

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.
>
> There have been some developments since my last post. I was ready to
> drop this whole thing until the guys at privacy.li started showing
> their true colors.
>
> First of all, they posted my personal information (or at least what
> they thought was my information) on alt.privacy and alt.privacy.anon-
> server. They posted what they thought was my IP address (turned out to
> actually be a Tor exit node) and other information. The link to this
> is http://groups.google.com/group/alt....f73504778872530
> using Google Groups.
>
> The point of all this is that this is an anonymity/privacy service
> that has no reservations about releasing personal info about their
> customers. To those who don't understand how a proxy service works, in
> essence, the proxy service becomes your surrogate ISP. The sites you
> visit don't know who you are but a proxy service like privacy.li knows
> exactly who you are and what websites you visit, etc.
>
> They've proven they have no hesitation whatsoever in releasing this
> private data. The point is, I was cautious in dealing with them, and
> it paid off. If you sign up with them, you may just be putting your
> livelihood (or even your life) in their hands. Don't take this
> lightly. They've proven how untrustworthy and dishonest (and even
> stupid) they are.
>
> The post from the privacy.li admin serves a dual purpose. It not only
> shows the character of these people but it shows that I'm not just
> making this stuff up. They've, in essence, verified all the details
> I've posted as accurate.
>
> This is just the first part of the story. The second part also has to
> do with the character of the people at privacy.li. I've posted all of
> the details on the TrueCrypt forums ( http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?t=5893
> ) and on the Wilders Security forums ( http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=994124
> ). The details are in my 2 posts dated today (April 30, 2007). I just
> don't want to repost all the details here. It has to do with how the
> guys at privacy.li submitted my e-mail address to numerous scam/spam
> sites and about the e-mails I've received due to their actions. I'm
> sure they had no way of knowing this, but I can show fairly
> conclusively that it was them and only them who could have submitted
> my e-mail address to those sites. And the dates of those scam e-mails
> correspond very well with the date I first posted on usenet (April 10,
> 2007). Read the forums for the details.
>
> I will also update my website ( http://screwprivacy.li.freewebspace.com/
> ) to reflect this new information right after I finish this post. Keep
> in mind that this is free web hosting, so I cannot control any
> problems that may occur after visiting the site. I don't think there's
> anything wrong with the site or any malware. I'm fairly technically
> savvy, and I haven't experienced any problems. If you have any
> reservations about it, just read the TrueCrypt and Wilders Security
> forums. It's the same information (although I would like to boost
> traffic to my site to help spread the word).
>
> Thanks for reading. I hope it's clear that I'm being honest in my
> posts, and I have nothing to gain by this except for spreading the
> word, and helping people avoid the problems I've experienced.
>
> Beware

Was this post about your private information signed by anyone? Probably
not. It's more likely you posted it yourself and when you figured out you
posted a Tor exit node tried to blame it on others as if they didn't know
what it was, like you didn't.

So what about the rest of the info?

Flush/Spammer/Anono perv

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-04-30, 7:12 pm

What?!

Does any of what you're saying actually make sense to you? You're
saying I posted that info myself.

Are you just trying to say anything to mount some type of argument,
regardless of how little sense it makes. Does everyone here work for
privacy.li or is there just a complete lack of common sense?

For those of you that can't talk about anything but the websites. Get
a clue. What I do is irrelevant. This is a privacy newsgroup. We're
here to discuss privacy.li, not me. Even if you don't like me, that
does nothing to alter the fact that I've meticulously detailed
unethical, unscrupulous, and possibly illegal behavior by privacy.li
in the following ways:

1. They can and will rip you off.
2. They can and will post, sell, or otherwise give away your personal
information if it suits their purposes. They will do this without
hesitation and will even brag about it.
3. They will use any means within their power to intimidate or harass
someone who objects to their business practices.

These are the relevant issues, not personal issues you have with me.

Beware

traveller 66 wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2007 05:05:19 -0700, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Was this post about your private information signed by anyone? Probably
> not. It's more likely you posted it yourself and when you figured out you
> posted a Tor exit node tried to blame it on others as if they didn't know
> what it was, like you didn't.
>
> So what about the rest of the info?
>
> Flush/Spammer/Anono perv

nospam

2007-04-30, 7:12 pm

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
> What?!
>
> Does any of what you're saying actually make sense to you? You're
> saying I posted that info myself.
>
> Are you just trying to say anything to mount some type of argument,
> regardless of how little sense it makes. Does everyone here work for
> privacy.li or is there just a complete lack of common sense?
>
> For those of you that can't talk about anything but the websites. Get
> a clue. What I do is irrelevant. This is a privacy newsgroup. We're
> here to discuss privacy.li, not me. Even if you don't like me, that
> does nothing to alter the fact that I've meticulously detailed
> unethical, unscrupulous, and possibly illegal behavior by privacy.li
> in the following ways:
>
> 1. They can and will rip you off.
> 2. They can and will post, sell, or otherwise give away your personal
> information if it suits their purposes. They will do this without
> hesitation and will even brag about it.
> 3. They will use any means within their power to intimidate or harass
> someone who objects to their business practices.
>
> These are the relevant issues, not personal issues you have with me.
>
> Beware
>
>
>
> traveller 66 wrote:
>
>
>

Please go get off on dead bodies and women getting raped pervert. I
wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. I really hope you have no kids
or any kids around you.

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-04-30, 7:12 pm

I don't get off on either of those things or otherwise find them
arousing.

Just for the record. That's the truth, whether you choose to believe
it or not.

I don't see any need to go into further detail.

Would you like to get back to the topic at hand?

nospam wrote:
> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Please go get off on dead bodies and women getting raped pervert. I
> wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. I really hope you have no kids
> or any kids around you.

amadeus

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

<snipped>

> Please go get off on dead bodies and women getting raped pervert. I
> wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. I really hope you have no kids
> or any kids around you.

Same here

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

Noone

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1177934719.524138.229110@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> 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.
>
> There have been some developments since my last post. I was
> ready to drop this whole thing until the guys at privacy.li
> started showing their true colors.

Started? They have outed users before, this is not new. They are
also going to have difficulty because they only accept e-gold and
e-gold has had their assets frozen.

What I don't understand is that if you were already using Tor why
signup at all with privacy.li? Tor gives you what no paid service
can, relative anonymity. Paid services can only give privacy.

If looking for additional features or speed selecting a privacy
service is a good addition, but you are much better off with a more
trusted service like anonymiser, cotse (imho the best in terms of
features, price, and support), findnot, ultimate-anonymity,
metropipe, or number of others. Privacy.li has a long sordid
history in here (alt.privacy).

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

Like I've stated, I never attempted to sign up to their proxy service.
I would never be stupid enough to do that. They advertise ancillary
services besides their proxy. It's really not relevant.

Noone wrote:

>
> Started? They have outed users before, this is not new. They are
> also going to have difficulty because they only accept e-gold and
> e-gold has had their assets frozen.
>
> What I don't understand is that if you were already using Tor why
> signup at all with privacy.li? Tor gives you what no paid service
> can, relative anonymity. Paid services can only give privacy.
>
> If looking for additional features or speed selecting a privacy
> service is a good addition, but you are much better off with a more
> trusted service like anonymiser, cotse (imho the best in terms of
> features, price, and support), findnot, ultimate-anonymity,
> metropipe, or number of others. Privacy.li has a long sordid
> history in here (alt.privacy).

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

Hey XXXXXXX, this is a privacy newsgroup. Stay on topic.

But as long as we're off topic. Why don't you just tell me where you
live and I'll be happy to come over and pound you into dirt.

amadeus wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>
> Same here
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:

> What?!
>
> Does any of what you're saying actually make sense to you? You're
> saying I posted that info myself.
>
> Are you just trying to say anything to mount some type of argument,

Of course he is.

In case you were unaware, you're addressing the very same criminal that
stole your money. A confessed pedophile no less, which makes "exposing"
you a bit ironic. The filthy scumbag will do to anything and everything
to deflect attention and redirect guilt including what you've just
experienced.... proffering up the most asinine accusations he can
invent.

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

I figured it was, but it's hard to be 100% sure.

What kind of person goes around the newsgroups pretending to be a
bunch of different people to deflect attention from themselves?

This seeming obsession by some people on these newsgroups with some
potential flaws in my character (as minor as they might be) strongly
indicates to me that it's just a few people from privacy.li taking up
several identities.

I've never seen this level of obsession about a few legal websites
before. Normal people don't post comments like I'm seeing here. That's
why I suspect it's a bunch (or maybe one) privacy.li lacky posting
these comments.

I'm sure they get away with this kind of stuff routinely (stealing,
scamming, harassing, intimidating, etc.), however, if you pull this
kind of stuff too much, you'll eventually run into the wrong guy
(that's me if you weren't paying attention). I can imagine some newbie
trying to sign up with these guys, having no idea what kind of abuse
they're in for. That's why you don't see this kind of stuff mentioned
about privacy.li more often. They're masters of intimidation.

Surprise assholes, you messed with the wrong guy this time. I don't go
into any situation without anticipating a worst case scenario and
planning for it. You don't think I anticipated that you could/would
post personal information. I was completely prepared for it.

You don't think I was prepared for you to send my e-mail address to
scam/spam sites. I'll let you in on a little secret. I had considered
doing the same to you but I considered it too small potatos and too
immature. I'm not done with you jerks. Not by a long shot.

Sleep well.

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Of course he is.
>
> In case you were unaware, you're addressing the very same criminal that
> stole your money. A confessed pedophile no less, which makes "exposing"
> you a bit ironic. The filthy scumbag will do to anything and everything
> to deflect attention and redirect guilt including what you've just
> experienced.... proffering up the most asinine accusations he can
> invent.

George Orwell

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

On 30 Apr 2007, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>I don't get off on either of those things or otherwise find them
>arousing.
>
>Just for the record. That's the truth, whether you choose to believe
>it or not.
>
>I don't see any need to go into further detail.
>
>Would you like to get back to the topic at hand?

He doesn't like the topic at hand. He has no real answers. So he'd rather
expose someone else's dirty laundry, and hope that it distracts from his
own.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>nospam wrote:

errata6170@mypacks.net

2007-05-01, 1:13 am

In article < 4bcacc79be66fb89796e50962606be5c@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>,
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> writes:[vbcol=seagreen]
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>

You kiddies wanna go tell your mommies they want you? Or, better, go
play in traffic? Whichever you choose, leave the adults alone, eh?

Anonymous Remailer (austria)

2007-05-01, 7:13 am

If your statements are true, then privacy.li has no
credibility whatsoever. But what was it that pissed
them off so much, that they thought they could out
you on Usenet?

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-01, 7:13 am

It's probably a combination of things. I came to usenet and told the
truth. Since the truth is damaging to them, I guess they felt they had
to do something to stop me.

Another thing is that they're arrogant and they have this mentality
that people are stupid. They have no respect whatsoever for their
customers or potential customers. They probably thought that people
wouldn't understand the ramifications of what they're doing. They feel
they can treat people like dirt (rip them off, threaten them,
intimidate them) if they maintain complete control of information
delivery systems, such as usenet. My understanding is that other
people have posted the truth on usenet before, but they have
successfully intimidated and suppressed them.

My best guess would be they figured I would be so embarrassed and
shocked by their statement that I would stop posting. The thread would
fall into obscurity quickly, and all would return to normal. They
guessed wrong.

I certainly didn't do anything to make them angry. I paid in the exact
way they asked for. They received the money (and I can prove it). They
declined to deliver service. I warned them of exactly what I would do.
I gave them a few weeks to respond. They had ample warning that I
would do exactly what I'm doing. They didn't respond at all. So, I did
exactly as I stated.

The short answer is, I didn't do anything to them except tell the
truth, but I gave them more than ample warning. They had plenty of
time to stop this from occurring. They probably thought they would
easily be able to suppress me, hence the lack of response to my
warnings.

Beware

Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> If your statements are true, then privacy.li has no
> credibility whatsoever. But what was it that pissed
> them off so much, that they thought they could out
> you on Usenet?

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-01, 7:13 am

Another telling factor about their arrogant mentality is the statement
they used to try to out me.

Take a look at this:

"Thanks for the coverage!! You are priceless, google page ranking is
moving up constantly - thus means business! Keep up the good work! "

You can just see the arrogant glee when he's calling me priceless. As
if he's so far above me that I can't do anything to touch him.

"And that the world sees what sicko you are, here what you ordered
from
me (I am glad the money didn't make it!): "

"that's your IP-address!!! [149.9.0.57] "

You see. They didn't need to be angry at all to do this. Can't you
just see the guy smiling when he thought he had the upper hand on me.

Just 2 words: arrogance, disrespect

Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> If your statements are true, then privacy.li has no
> credibility whatsoever. But what was it that pissed
> them off so much, that they thought they could out
> you on Usenet?

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-01, 7:13 am

"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:

>
> If your statements are true, then privacy.li has no
> credibility whatsoever. But what was it that pissed
> them off so much, that they thought they could out
> you on Usenet?

He exposed their theft. Dumb bunny actually sent them cash, they "lost"
it (not the first report of this happening we've seen), and he went
public about it.

The crooks didn't even deny anything, they tried to brush it aside.
When that didn't work they went on the attack only to embarrass
themselves further by outing a Tor node. <laugh!>

Anonymous

2007-05-01, 7:13 am

traveller 66

2007-05-01, 1:13 pm

On Tue, 1 May 2007 06:12:05 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> On 30 Apr 2007, yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> He doesn't like the topic at hand. He has no real answers. So he'd rather
> expose someone else's dirty laundry, and hope that it distracts from his
> own.
>

I don't think I've seen a puppet talking to himself so much in one place at
the same time before, the social assistance must have just been paid out
and the booze fridge is full, lol.

Flush/Puppet/Troll/Perv

Sniper .308

2007-05-01, 1:13 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:11:47 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

Here is an interesting line in "nospam" headers:

Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels,
www.privacy.li

It appears not only the smear campaign continues, but the people at
Privacy.li are real scumbags.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBRjdwQWeRMROiAx2REQLzpgCg/wzsgEj52Y7H+rvfLnKiI3dmvoIAn0QV
pr4qaaYwYHP/4Num5qKgjllz
=2UXA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Sniper .308

2007-05-01, 1:13 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:34:44 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>Please go get off on dead bodies and women getting raped pervert. I
>wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. I really hope you have no
>kids or any kids around you.

Who would post this trolling off topic garbage?

Let's take a look at the headers:

Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels,
www.privacy.li
X-Complaints-To: admin01@privacy.li

How interesting.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/ AwUBRjdw9meRMROiAx2REQJp1wCcDQ7FEH90CRde
H3xcH3UJWG2pBhMAn2f7
ApGtZob3LRoVghxSRhKruz0V
=g6vv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Privacy LIE SCAM

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

A representative of the privacy.LIE scam group made shit up:

>Why don't you contact a lawyer and make it a case ? if you can find
>anyone who will defend someone who gets off on dead corpses and women

As opposed to LIVE corpses, you stupid XXXXing cocksucker?

>getting raped. Or did you forgot to tell that part also on the forums ?

You have it here folks. If you get ripped off by the scam artists
at privacy LIE, they will attempt to out you and smear you. Don't
expect this so-called "privacy" site to do anything of the sort.

They have been caught lying repeatedly in the past, the owner of the
site is a self-admitted neo-Nazi, and even if the service was honest,
it's too incompetently run to be trustworthy.

There are far better choices, like Cotse, or actually, pretty
much anything. Use TOR or free proxies before using a scam run
by criminals and swindlers who will out you if you get ripped off
by them and complain about it.

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

Sniper .308 <me@my.desk> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:11:47 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
> wrote:
>
> Here is an interesting line in "nospam" headers:
>
> Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels,
> www.privacy.li

Old news. We already know through headers, spelling and grammar errors
and attempts to correct them *snicker*, and flat out screwing up and
replying to messages as the wrong sock puppet *laugh*, that all the
bullshit posted to these groups is one lowlife bottom feeder juggling
as many personas as possible, but not very well. *chuckle*.

>
> It appears not only the smear campaign continues, but the people at
> Privacy.li are real scumbags.

All you have to do is visit their web site to know that. They've poured
all their hatred and paranoia into the very first page you see, and it
goes down hill from there. They data mine you for third parties, use
the same tricks spammers and phishers use to try and get you to reveal
your personal information, send you web bugs and all sorts of other
goodies to try and track your browsing habits, and plain old lie to you
just to eek out some crumb of information about who you are.

That's all BEFORE you even start the process of subscribing to or
buying any of their snake oil services.

The trolls keep telling us that Privacy.LIE has been around for a long
time and has a good reputation. Fact is neither one of those things is
true. Their reputation is dog shit. Everyone from moderately
knowledgeable people in these groups to experts like Bruce Schneier has
spanked them raw, and all they could ever do about it is whine
and spit because all of it's true.

Their alleged longevity is a total sham too. The business has either
been sold, to forcibly or taken over by (depending on what day it is
and which story sounds better), some alleged anonymous new owner slash
former employee who doesn't have the guts to do business out in the
open for some strange reason. IOW, Georg Adem proved to be such a slime
ball this figurehead "Adminus" took over. Of course they have the exact
same literary skills, run the exact same scams, and parrot the exact
same delusional conspira-loon garbage.

And lets not forget that within the last year or so they were forced to
relocate their operation (they have nothing at ALL to do with
Liechtenstein) because the dope smuggling scam site hosted on their
very same machines was raided/busted. Of course they had nothing at all
to do with any of that. <rolls eyes> Much like they have nothing at all
to do with the well known scam banks they openly promote. <rolls eyes
again>

Privacy.LIE is pure net filth. They provide no beneficial services what
so ever, and scam people into handing over their money for the
privilege of getting nothing in return. The only reason someone hasn't
kicked their doors in and placed them in handcuffs permanently is
because even among privacy services (a tiny subsection of the net)
they're small potatoes. Nobody really cares about them aside from the
few people who they do manage to steal money from, and most of those
are too embarrassed to come forward either because they don't want to
look like fools, or they were going to try and do something disgusting
such as trade kiddie porn, just like their #1 user/moderator/advocate
"traveler 66" AKA "Eggplant".

Web search that skanky XXXXer's on line history and you get a real good
picture of what sort of "satisfied customer" they cater to. It's
revolting.

rover

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 1 May 2007, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:

>Web search that skanky XXXXer's on line history and you get a real good
>picture of what sort of "satisfied customer" they cater to. It's
>revolting.

Oh, you're just being mean. <G>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/ AwUBRjeZIQ6cfiGatg8+EQIHxwCeJKeJaXdxRl8f
Y98w5i7i/r/QwDcAn0+A
SWJfBkVGPmsixsj5jRCfaWe6
=1q/X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

travellerpuppet #66 AKA "Eggplant the molester" wrote:

> I don't think I've seen a puppet talking to himself

Don't read your own posts, eh?

XXXXing filthy child molester. What gives you the right to label
someone else a "perv"?

Armin, der Etrusker

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

Thus quoth Jeffrey Bloss, the jewish janitor of TOR!
Jeffrey F. Bloss jbloss@tampabay.rr.com

Its the old jewish thing: hire unemployed keyboard operators like
Jeffrey F. Bloss, send them monthly food stamps, and let them defend the
jewish 'we are the chosen people' and 'you are all goyim'

Over 12000 clients of www.privacy.li know better!

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> Sniper .308 <me@my.desk> wrote:
>

schnippelschnappel!

Non scrivetemi

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

In article < c0f7b785853173396c0dd02122f49c65@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> Privacy.LIE is pure net filth. They provide no beneficial services what
> so ever, and scam people into handing over their money for the
> privilege of getting nothing in return. The only reason someone hasn't
> kicked their doors in and placed them in handcuffs permanently is
> because even among privacy services (a tiny subsection of the net)
> they're small potatoes. Nobody really cares about them aside from the
> few people who they do manage to steal money from, and most of those
> are too embarrassed to come forward either because they don't want to
> look like fools, or they were going to try and do something disgusting
> such as trade kiddie porn, just like their #1 user/moderator/advocate
> "traveler 66" AKA "Eggplant".
>
> Web search that skanky XXXXer's on line history and you get a real good
> picture of what sort of "satisfied customer" they cater to. It's
> revolting.

I never have to write anything on this topic because you do it so well for
me.

Thank you.

George Orwell

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

"Armin, der Etrusker" <armin@etrusker.net> wrote:

>
>
> Thus quoth ....

<snip personal info>

That's the second time in about a month you've "outed" someone and
made a complete jackass of yourself in to process by not only getting
it wrong, but punctuating your blatant antisemitism.

Nice job!

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-01, 7:14 pm

Armin, der Etrusker wrote:

>
>
> Thus quoth Jeffrey Bloss, the jewish janitor of TOR! Jeffrey F.
> Bloss ######@########.##.###

Posting more personal information I see. I suppose you think it will
intimidate people, but all it really does is prove what sort of privacy
you support.

>
> Its the old jewish thing: hire unemployed keyboard operators like
> Jeffrey F. Bloss, send them monthly food stamps, and let them defend
> the jewish 'we are the chosen people' and 'you are all goyim'
>
> Over 12000 clients of www.privacy.li know better!

You only have to look through your forums to know how big a lie this
is. You're lucky if you have 100 clients, and 99 of those are your sock
puppets.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>
>
> schnippelschnappel!
>

Anonymous

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:

> I figured it was, but it's hard to be 100% sure.

Not if you've been reading these groups for a couple months. It's so
obvious even a Cave Man can see it. ;-)

> What kind of person goes around the newsgroups pretending to be a
> bunch of different people to deflect attention from themselves?

Depraved, desperate, delinquent. No other way to describe him. His
mommy and daddy never taught him how to make an honest living, and he's
not bright enough to make a dishonest one.

> This seeming obsession by some people on these newsgroups with some
> potential flaws in my character (as minor as they might be) strongly
> indicates to me that it's just a few people from privacy.li taking up
> several identities.

To be brutally honest I find the subject matter he posted about
revolting. But it's nowhere near a revolting as the pedophile crap
Eggtard/travelerpuppet/Adminus whacks off to. It's not illegal like
the XXXXer's kiddie porn is either, in most places.

> I've never seen this level of obsession about a few legal websites
> before. Normal people don't post comments like I'm seeing here. That's
> why I suspect it's a bunch (or maybe one) privacy.li lacky posting
> these comments.

If you do a little research you'll find out how all these puppets were
exposed as the same person. As usual, he did it himself. After being
chided for months over his inability to distinguish between 'your' and
'you're' he tried to correct it. Amusingly enough, rather than simply
correcting the errors he started OVER correcting. Where he use to make
the mistake like "Your going to get it", he started making it "You're
mother wears combat boots".

One of the funniest things I ever watched. Someone actually PREDICTED
the idiot would out his sock puppets this way, and within 48 hours it
happened anyway. Not only the normal socks like nospam and blackhat,
but his anonymous remailer use was exposed too.

Then recently we found out that a well known net pedophile calling
himself "Eggplant" was actually another sock, when "traveler" replied
to one if "Eggplants" messages. First he admitted that he forgot to
change identities, then a day or so later he started trying to deny it.

> I'm sure they get away with this kind of stuff routinely (stealing,
> scamming, harassing, intimidating, etc.), however, if you pull this
> kind of stuff too much, you'll eventually run into the wrong guy

He's run into the wrong guy a couple times already. That's what
prompted the change in management, and a couple of location changes.
The XXXXer lives his entire online life on the run, dodging the law and
then popping up somewhere else.

> (that's me if you weren't paying attention). I can imagine some newbie
> trying to sign up with these guys, having no idea what kind of abuse
> they're in for. That's why you don't see this kind of stuff mentioned
> about privacy.li more often. They're masters of intimidation.

Privacy.LIE doesn't have much business at all, and it's declining
steadily. The 12000 this is a lie, just like it was last month when it
was 10000. If you Google privacy services at all you'll never look at
them twice because it's the truth about Privacy.LIE that's rising to
the top of the charts. Their home page usually shows up first, then the
rest is started off by their XXX kicking in Schneier's Dog House,
homelandstupidity.com, the author of TorPark, etc. About 90%
"privacy.lie sucks" and first hand accounts of what crooks they are.

> Surprise assholes, you messed with the wrong guy this time. I don't go
> into any situation without anticipating a worst case scenario and
> planning for it. You don't think I anticipated that you could/would
> post personal information. I was completely prepared for it.

Indeed you did, and made fools of them in the process. For that you
deserve kudos from every privacy and anonymity advoceat and provider on
the planet. You bunched their undies to the point they hung themselves
on them. A classic!

> You don't think I was prepared for you to send my e-mail address to
> scam/spam sites. I'll let you in on a little secret. I had considered
> doing the same to you but I considered it too small potatos and too
> immature. I'm not done with you jerks. Not by a long shot.

Please don't forget to keep us updated. ;)

George Orwell

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

"Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivetemi@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:

> In article < c0f7b785853173396c0dd02122f49c65@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> I never have to write anything on this topic because you do it so well for
> me.
>
> Thank you.

You're welcome. Really, it's my pleasure.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:

> Armin, der Etrusker wrote:
>
>
> Posting more personal information I see. I suppose you think it will
> intimidate people, but all it really does is prove what sort of privacy
> you support.

That would be none.

Let's not overlook the fact that the asshat thinks calling someone a
Jew is an insult, either. Every time his finger touch the keyboard
we're given another reason to avoid privacy.lie at all costs.

Sometimes the reasons come two and three at a time. ;)

>
>
> You only have to look through your forums to know how big a lie this
> is. You're lucky if you have 100 clients, and 99 of those are your sock
> puppets.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

Anonymous wrote:
> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Not if you've been reading these groups for a couple months. It's so
> obvious even a Cave Man can see it. ;-)
>
>
> Depraved, desperate, delinquent. No other way to describe him. His
> mommy and daddy never taught him how to make an honest living, and he's
> not bright enough to make a dishonest one.
>
>
> To be brutally honest I find the subject matter he posted about
> revolting. But it's nowhere near a revolting as the pedophile crap
> Eggtard/travelerpuppet/Adminus whacks off to. It's not illegal like
> the XXXXer's kiddie porn is either, in most places.
>
>
> If you do a little research you'll find out how all these puppets were
> exposed as the same person. As usual, he did it himself. After being
> chided for months over his inability to distinguish between 'your' and
> 'you're' he tried to correct it. Amusingly enough, rather than simply
> correcting the errors he started OVER correcting. Where he use to make
> the mistake like "Your going to get it", he started making it "You're
> mother wears combat boots".
>
> One of the funniest things I ever watched. Someone actually PREDICTED
> the idiot would out his sock puppets this way, and within 48 hours it
> happened anyway. Not only the normal socks like nospam and blackhat,
> but his anonymous remailer use was exposed too.
>
> Then recently we found out that a well known net pedophile calling
> himself "Eggplant" was actually another sock, when "traveler" replied
> to one if "Eggplants" messages. First he admitted that he forgot to
> change identities, then a day or so later he started trying to deny it.
>
>
> He's run into the wrong guy a couple times already. That's what
> prompted the change in management, and a couple of location changes.
> The XXXXer lives his entire online life on the run, dodging the law and
> then popping up somewhere else.
>
>
> Privacy.LIE doesn't have much business at all, and it's declining
> steadily. The 12000 this is a lie, just like it was last month when it
> was 10000. If you Google privacy services at all you'll never look at
> them twice because it's the truth about Privacy.LIE that's rising to
> the top of the charts. Their home page usually shows up first, then the
> rest is started off by their XXX kicking in Schneier's Dog House,
> homelandstupidity.com, the author of TorPark, etc. About 90%
> "privacy.lie sucks" and first hand accounts of what crooks they are.
>
>
> Indeed you did, and made fools of them in the process. For that you
> deserve kudos from every privacy and anonymity advoceat and provider on
> the planet. You bunched their undies to the point they hung themselves
> on them. A classic!

>
>
> Please don't forget to keep us updated. ;)

I'm still thinking over a few ideas. I have to make sure to get it
right and protect myself in the process. I can't do anything too
stupid that's gonna hurt me in the process. But I will do something.

It's amazing these guys still get any business (such as myself) with
all that's currently known about them. What we need is some way to
spread this kind of information such that the masses will get it with
a simple google search. Yeah, I know Bruce Schneier sort of gave them
a bloody nose, but it's nothing compared to the beating they'll get
when the truth is actually made readily available. I actually read
Schneier's article on them beforehand, but I didn't consider it enough
because he was just speculating. If I had read this thread, no way
would I have sent them any money.

The key is, this info has to show up on the first or second page of a
google search, which it currently doesn't.

I don't have much more to say about these scumbags today. You guys
have said it all.

Beware

traveller 66

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

On Tue, 1 May 2007 14:39:54 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> travellerpuppet #66 AKA "Eggplant the molester" wrote:
>
>
> Don't read your own posts, eh?
>
> XXXXing filthy child molester. What gives you the right to label
> someone else a "perv"?

In my own professional experience, I usually encounter associates who are
mostly overbearing type A alpha-male contestants who spend more time trying
to undermine one another than providing good service. They think the job
description is being able to look good in a suit and know what a gun looks
like. Beyond that, they try to insure their positions by slandering whoever
they can, in order shift attention away from the fact that they can't find
their own asses with both hands and radar. Their method doesn't work.

Flush/Puppet/Troll

traveller 66

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

On Wed, 02 May 2007 02:49:21 +0200, Anonymous wrote:

> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Not if you've been reading these groups for a couple months. It's so
> obvious even a Cave Man can see it. ;-)
>
>
> Depraved, desperate, delinquent. No other way to describe him. His
> mommy and daddy never taught him how to make an honest living, and he's
> not bright enough to make a dishonest one.
>
>
> To be brutally honest I find the subject matter he posted about
> revolting. But it's nowhere near a revolting as the pedophile crap
> Eggtard/travelerpuppet/Adminus whacks off to. It's not illegal like
> the XXXXer's kiddie porn is either, in most places.

Speak for yourself, not me troll. The fact that your peddling this garbage
says more about you than anything else. Someone must be paying you.

Flush

>
>
> If you do a little research you'll find out how all these puppets were
> exposed as the same person. As usual, he did it himself. After being
> chided for months over his inability to distinguish between 'your' and
> 'you're' he tried to correct it. Amusingly enough, rather than simply
> correcting the errors he started OVER correcting. Where he use to make
> the mistake like "Your going to get it", he started making it "You're
> mother wears combat boots".
>
> One of the funniest things I ever watched. Someone actually PREDICTED
> the idiot would out his sock puppets this way, and within 48 hours it
> happened anyway. Not only the normal socks like nospam and blackhat,
> but his anonymous remailer use was exposed too.
>
> Then recently we found out that a well known net pedophile calling
> himself "Eggplant" was actually another sock, when "traveler" replied
> to one if "Eggplants" messages. First he admitted that he forgot to
> change identities, then a day or so later he started trying to deny it.
>
>
> He's run into the wrong guy a couple times already. That's what
> prompted the change in management, and a couple of location changes.
> The XXXXer lives his entire online life on the run, dodging the law and
> then popping up somewhere else.
>
>
> Privacy.LIE doesn't have much business at all, and it's declining
> steadily. The 12000 this is a lie, just like it was last month when it
> was 10000. If you Google privacy services at all you'll never look at
> them twice because it's the truth about Privacy.LIE that's rising to
> the top of the charts. Their home page usually shows up first, then the
> rest is started off by their XXX kicking in Schneier's Dog House,
> homelandstupidity.com, the author of TorPark, etc. About 90%
> "privacy.lie sucks" and first hand accounts of what crooks they are.
>
>
> Indeed you did, and made fools of them in the process. For that you
> deserve kudos from every privacy and anonymity advoceat and provider on
> the planet. You bunched their undies to the point they hung themselves
> on them. A classic!

>
>
> Please don't forget to keep us updated. ;)

traveller 66

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

On Wed, 02 May 2007 02:49:21 +0200, Anonymous wrote:

> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Not if you've been reading these groups for a couple months. It's so
> obvious even a Cave Man can see it. ;-)
>
>
> Depraved, desperate, delinquent. No other way to describe him. His
> mommy and daddy never taught him how to make an honest living, and he's
> not bright enough to make a dishonest one.
>
>
> To be brutally honest I find the subject matter he posted about
> revolting. But it's nowhere near a revolting as the pedophile crap
> Eggtard/travelerpuppet/Adminus whacks off to. It's not illegal like
> the XXXXer's kiddie porn is either, in most places.
>
>
> If you do a little research you'll find out how all these puppets were
> exposed as the same person. As usual, he did it himself. After being
> chided for months over his inability to distinguish between 'your' and
> 'you're' he tried to correct it. Amusingly enough, rather than simply
> correcting the errors he started OVER correcting. Where he use to make
> the mistake like "Your going to get it", he started making it "You're
> mother wears combat boots".
>
> One of the funniest things I ever watched. Someone actually PREDICTED
> the idiot would out his sock puppets this way, and within 48 hours it
> happened anyway. Not only the normal socks like nospam and blackhat,
> but his anonymous remailer use was exposed too.
>
> Then recently we found out that a well known net pedophile calling
> himself "Eggplant" was actually another sock, when "traveler" replied
> to one if "Eggplants" messages. First he admitted that he forgot to
> change identities, then a day or so later he started trying to deny it.

I'm sure you can provide the posts with full headers from google, I'm
waiting with baited breath. I think what you have is what they call
projection, get some help and spam somewhere else.

Why post through re-mailers, use one of your many handles. You've used so
many no one would remember them all.

>
> He's run into the wrong guy a couple times already. That's what
> prompted the change in management, and a couple of location changes.
> The XXXXer lives his entire online life on the run, dodging the law and
> then popping up somewhere else.
>
>
> Privacy.LIE doesn't have much business at all, and it's declining
> steadily. The 12000 this is a lie, just like it was last month when it
> was 10000. If you Google privacy services at all you'll never look at
> them twice because it's the truth about Privacy.LIE that's rising to
> the top of the charts. Their home page usually shows up first, then the
> rest is started off by their XXX kicking in Schneier's Dog House,
> homelandstupidity.com, the author of TorPark, etc. About 90%
> "privacy.lie sucks" and first hand accounts of what crooks they are.
>
>
> Indeed you did, and made fools of them in the process. For that you
> deserve kudos from every privacy and anonymity advoceat and provider on
> the planet. You bunched their undies to the point they hung themselves
> on them. A classic!

>
>
> Please don't forget to keep us updated. ;)

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-02, 1:14 am

Anonymous wrote:

>
> Please don't forget to keep us updated. ;)

Oh, yeah. Guys, don't forget to try to contact Dr. Who (the guy who
maintains the famed Security and Encryption FAQ). He needs to know
what privacy.li is all about.

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.

I think without the FAQ, they'll be cut back down to size.

If you guys know how to contact him, please do it. I seem to recall in
the past that he posted an e-mail address, but I couldn't find it
today.

Official site: http://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/pantaw...ndEncryptionFaq

Beware

p.s. I googled privacy.li today and my 2 threads came up 3 times on
the first page. That's surprising and it encourages me to continue.
Apparently you don't have to have a website to spread the word
(although it would help).

Ari

2007-05-02, 7:13 pm

On 1 May 2007 21:22:59 +0200, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> The trolls keep telling us that Privacy.LIE has been around for a long
> time and has a good reputation. Fact is neither one of those things is
> true. Their reputation is dog shit.

I have a dog who takes offence to this.

Ari

2007-05-02, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:28 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> Let's not overlook the fact that the asshat thinks calling someone a
> Jew is an insult,

I have a Jew who takes offence to this.

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-02, 7:13 pm

Just to set the record straight on a minor point, the guys at
privacy.li technically didn't sign me up for scam/spam e-mail. Those e-
mails were obviously as a direct result of them posting my e-mail
address on usenet. Those comments of mine were made before I knew they
had posted my e-mail address.

So, while they technically didn't do what I said, they were still
entirely responsible, and it really doesn't alter anything in my mind.

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> This is just the first part of the story. The second part also has to
> do with the character of the people at privacy.li. I've posted all of
> the details on the TrueCrypt forums ( http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?t=5893
> ) and on the Wilders Security forums ( http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=994124
> ). The details are in my 2 posts dated today (April 30, 2007). I just
> don't want to repost all the details here. It has to do with how the
> guys at privacy.li submitted my e-mail address to numerous scam/spam
> sites and about the e-mails I've received due to their actions. I'm
> sure they had no way of knowing this, but I can show fairly
> conclusively that it was them and only them who could have submitted
> my e-mail address to those sites. And the dates of those scam e-mails
> correspond very well with the date I first posted on usenet (April 10,
> 2007). Read the forums for the details.
>

nospam

2007-05-02, 7:13 pm

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
> Just to set the record straight on a minor point, the guys at
> privacy.li technically didn't sign me up for scam/spam e-mail. Those e-
> mails were obviously as a direct result of them posting my e-mail
> address on usenet. Those comments of mine were made before I knew they
> had posted my e-mail address.
>
> So, while they technically didn't do what I said, they were still
> entirely responsible, and it really doesn't alter anything in my mind.
>

I was hoping it would alter your mind actually, stay away from kids you
pervert !

yh7t78@yahoo.com

2007-05-03, 1:14 am

Hey moron. Let me let you in on a little fact. I like women. I like
tits, pubic hair, and an hour glass figure.

You and your cohorts apparently like none of the above. I haven't been
around these groups long, but my understanding is that wherever the
pampers is, you is too. It's not me that should stay away from
children, and you know it.

Do you actually think you're fooling anyone. I've been here for a
couple days, and I know very well that you nospam
<nospam@nospam.nospam> are either the admin for privacy.li or one of
their puppets. Your job is to come around here and deflect attention
away from privacy.li without ever admitting your association. Usually
this involves trying to pounce on any weakness of anyone saying
anything negative about privacy.li. This usually involves some caustic
one-liner that's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Traveller66 is also either the admin or a puppet of privacy.li. His
job is similar to yours except that he's less caustic with his
responses.

The guy called Armin, der Etrusker is actually admitting he's the
admin of privacy.li. Since this alias only has 2 posts total, it would
be fair to assume that the admin has used other aliases in the past to
out people on usenet.

In reality, it seems to be 2 or 3 different people from privacy.li.
Traveller66 and Armin seem to have a similar writing style, but I'll
look at that more closely. nospam seems to be an entirely different
person. Either way, you're all with privacy.li.

Cut the shit already. You're not fooling anyone. You know what the
difference is between Traveller66 and nospam and everyone else?
Everyone else is trying to add something to the discussion. These
identities clearly have one purpose, protect and advance privacy.li.
You have the mentality of criminals and scammers, and that's why
everyone here despises you. How can you not notice that you're hated
by so many people who've never done business with you and don't
otherwise know you except from your posts. Do you see any of the other
privacy services, privacy software makers, etc. coming here, taking up
aliases, and spreading misinformation and FUD. Reputable businesses
don't behave like you. Normal people don't behave like you. You're the
only ones here trying to destroy these newsgroups. That's why people
hate you. This is all stuff the rest of us learned in the third grade.

I can accept that some people don't like certain things about me, and
others have said that. But that doesn't affect what I have to say.
You're not going to get rid of me with your ridiculous, off-topic
posts. So, either add something meaningful or shut up.

Beware

nospam wrote:
> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I was hoping it would alter your mind actually, stay away from kids you
> pervert !

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-03, 1:14 am

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I was hoping it would alter your mind actually, stay away from kids you
> pervert !

Do you honestly believe you have the ability to alter minds?

macarro

2007-05-03, 7:13 am

s. I googled privacy.li today and my 2 threads came up 3 times on
> the first page. That's surprising and it encourages me to continue.
> Apparently you don't have to have a website to spread the word
> (although it would help).

I think I know why your website got deleted, I believe you in what you
say 200%, the reason for that is not your post, but the fact that
privacy.li replied posting all your personals details to try put you
off, and even if it wasn't truth that they ripped you off, which is not
the case, they would still be scum for publicily posting what they
believed was your IP.

Anyway, my point is that if you can't proof it in a court of justice
then no webhost will have your webpage because they could be sued.

But you can proof that privacy.li posted your personal information that
they can't deny, and since your IP actually wasn't your IP

then not
much to worry about.

PS: Please keep this thread out of of comp.security.ssh that group does
not have much to do with privacy, only SSH inner workings.

--

Customized News: http://news.spotback.com

nospam

2007-05-03, 7:13 am

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you honestly believe you have the ability to alter minds?
>
>

/me slaps the lill puppet with a big salami ROTFL

nospam

2007-05-03, 7:13 am

yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hey moron. Let me let you in on a little fact. I like women. I like
> tits, pubic hair, and an hour glass figure.
>
<snip>

yes, you like all that and i believe you, just that the age is usually
below 12 you pervert ! be gone, you make us sick !

Sniper .308

2007-05-03, 7:13 pm

On Thu, 03 May 2007 01:18:54 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>I was hoping it would alter your mind actually, stay away from kids you
>pervert !

Look who is trolling:

Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels,
www.privacy.li
X-Complaints-To: admin01@privacy.li

Sniper .308

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:05:03 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
><snip>

Look who is trolling:

Organization: Privacy.li- Anonymous news through SSH2-Tunnels,
www.privacy.li
X-Complaints-To: admin01@privacy.li

>yes, you like all that and i believe you, just that the age is usually
>below 12 you pervert ! be gone, you make us sick !

Sniper .308

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:57:35 -0700, Sniper .308 <me@my.desk> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]

You folks at Privacy.li are doing a wonderful job of proving that you
are un-trust worthy low life scum bags. Count on going out of
business soon.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> /me slaps the lill puppet with a big salami ROTFL

Do you honestly believe salami can laugh?

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

nospam AKA "Eggplant the child molester" wrote:

> yh7t78@yahoo.com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> yes, you like all that and i believe you, just that the age is
> usually below 12 you pervert ! be gone, you make us sick !

No, you do.

nospam

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

Sniper .308 wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:57:35 -0700, Sniper .308 <me@my.desk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You folks at Privacy.li are doing a wonderful job of proving that you
> are un-trust worthy low life scum bags. Count on going out of
> business soon.

You are so hilarious...seeing in every one a privacy.li admin or owner LOL !

Man, you crack me up seriously, but go ahead...i enjoy it

nospam

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you honestly believe salami can laugh?
>
Do you honestly believe that i'll take your question seriously ? LOL

nospam

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> nospam AKA "Eggplant the child molester" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, you do.
>

Leave pervert !

George Orwell

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Do you honestly believe that i'll take your question seriously ? LOL

Do you honestly believe I care how you take it, as long as you scroll
to the bottom of the screen and waste your time replying?

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2007-05-03, 7:14 pm

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> Leave pervert !

Where should I leave you?

nospam

2007-05-04, 1:14 am

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Where should I leave you?
>
>

with your mom

nospam

2007-05-04, 1:14 am

George Orwell wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you honestly believe I care how you take it, as long as you scroll
> to the bottom of the screen and waste your time replying?

oh you mean like you're doing too ? ;-)

George Orwell

2007-05-04, 1:14 am

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> with your mom

My mother's dead you sick XXXX.

Noone

2007-05-04, 1:14 am

nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in
news:463a5d60$0$2262$450c70f1@news.privacy.li:

> Sniper .308 wrote:
>
> You are so hilarious...seeing in every one a privacy.li admin or
> owner LOL !
>
> Man, you crack me up seriously, but go ahead...i enjoy it

>

He's just using your own logic. For years everyone who spoke out
against you was labeled a cotse shill, or Gilda. You did that. It
stands to reason that you thought everyone was the owner of cotse
because you are the owner of privacy.li. A thief's first thought
when he misplaces something is that someone stole it, a liars first
thought is that others are lying, a trolls first thought is that
everyone else is trolling. Only we weren't and you were very bad
at it.

You really do make yourself look bad all on your own while blaming
it on everyone else. I see it now, when cotse came on the scene
and effectively shined the light on the fake anonymity services it
scared the hell out of you. Many of the services who weren't
trying to outright scam people changed, we saw info about logs
posted to the sites and down came the impossibly "100% anonymity"
claims.

But not privacy.li. You stuck by the claims of no logs at all
while you posted information about who visited your forums. You
spammed the group while blaming it on the service who was shining
the light on you. You kept making the claims of "100% anonymity"
while you posted information you thought outed a client who had a
beef with you. This last one making it so bad a situation that he
creates a web site about it and you then not only verify his claims
by posting his order in an attempt to out him, but also thank him
for the publicity?

Now you attack him for perversion where even worse are shared by
you and all of your known clients, by your own admissions. How
deep are you going to dig? You don't really expect to help your
image in the slightest by these actions, do you?

Sniper .308

2007-05-04, 7:13 am

On Fri, 04 May 2007 00:22:48 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>
>You are so hilarious...

You are just a bad joke.

>seeing in every one a privacy.li admin or owner LOL !

If the shoe fits

>Man, you crack me up seriously, but go ahead...i enjoy it

Not as much as we are.

Nomen Nescio

2007-05-04, 7:13 am

In article <1177934719.524138.229110@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
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.

I got your message and I'm sick of your XXXXing updates. Look at this
piece of garbage thread you created. Get the XXXX out and stay out.

George Orwell

2007-05-04, 7:13 am

>I got your message and I'm sick of your XXXXing updates. Look at this
>piece of garbage thread you created. Get the XXXX out and stay out.

STFU/ESAD/FOAD troll/moron/XXXXXXX!

nospam

2007-05-04, 1:13 pm

Noone wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in
> news:463a5d60$0$2262$450c70f1@news.privacy.li:
>
>
>
>
> He's just using your own logic. For years everyone who spoke out
> against you was labeled a cotse shill, or Gilda. You did that. It
> stands to reason that you thought everyone was the owner of cotse
> because you are the owner of privacy.li. A thief's first thought
> when he misplaces something is that someone stole it, a liars first
> thought is that others are lying, a trolls first thought is that
> everyone else is trolling. Only we weren't and you were very bad
> at it.
>
<snip>

hmm i smell something ... do you smell also little nuts getting roasted?

nospam

2007-05-04, 1:13 pm

Sniper .308 wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 00:22:48 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> You are just a bad joke.
>
>
>
>
> If the shoe fits
>
>
>
>
> Not as much as we are.

now now...go get off on dead bodies and raping women you pervert !

George Orwell

2007-05-04, 1:13 pm

George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:

>
> My mother's dead you sick XXXX.

Then that sounds like a DANDY place to leave the bastard. ;)

Sniper .308

2007-05-04, 1:13 pm

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:58:34 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>now now...go get off on dead bodies and raping women you pervert !

Got any FACTS to back up this statement? No! Thanks for PROVING you
are a scum bag troll.

Sniper .308

2007-05-04, 1:13 pm

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:58:00 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>hmm i smell something ... do you smell also little nuts getting roasted?

those would be yours.... oh wait you don't have any nuts to be
roasted.

Sniper .308

2007-05-04, 1:13 pm

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:28:18 -0700, Sniper .308 <me@my.desk> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:58:34 +0200, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>Got any FACTS to back up this statement? No! Thanks for PROVING you
>are a scum bag troll.

Speaking of bullshit and lies these came right off the scum bags web
site:

"Protecting the (electronic) privacy and give guidance to enhance your
personal privacy while you are online. Further emphasis lies on
protecting your financial privacy, online and offline."

".... will under no circumstances jeopardize your privacy. Trust and
reputation are being built over time and experience, not by names,
addresses, phone numbers and zip codes. We are an organisation based
on morals and professionalism. "

"Protecting the (electronic) privacy and give guidance to enhance your
personal privacy while you are online. Further emphasis lies on
protecting your financial privacy, online and offline."

nospam

2007-05-04, 7:13 pm

Sniper .308 wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:28:18 -0700, Sniper .308 <me@my.desk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Speaking of bullshit and lies these came right off the scum bags web
> site:
>
> "Protecting the (electronic) privacy and give guidance to enhance your
> personal privacy while you are online. Further emphasis lies on
> protecting your financial privacy, online and offline."
>
> ".... will under no circumstances jeopardize your privacy. Trust and
> reputation are being built over time and experience, not by names,
> addresses, phone numbers and zip codes. We are an organisation based
> on morals and professionalism. "
>
> "Protecting the (electronic) privacy and give guidance to enhance your
> personal privacy while you are online. Further emphasis lies on
> protecting your financial privacy, online and offline."

i'm sorry you're confused thinking that ANY privacy service would
protect some pervert like you. I hope you don't have any kids.

J Jay

2007-05-05, 1:13 pm

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 38
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.privacy:181292 alt.privacy.anon-server:445859 alt.cotse:31131 comp.security.ssh:49816 alt.security.pgp:150903

In article <463b9aaf$0$2241$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>, nospam@nospam.nospam
says...
> Sniper .308 wrote:
>
> i'm sorry you're confused thinking that ANY privacy service would
> protect some pervert like you. I hope you don't have any kids.
>
Is all of this BS slowly leading up to a question about PGP or GnuPG?
J Jay

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-05, 1:13 pm

J Jay <jjay@no.com> wrote:

> In article <463b9aaf$0$2241$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>, nospam@nospam.nospam
> says...
> Is all of this BS slowly leading up to a question about PGP or GnuPG?
> J Jay

No.

Nomen Nescio

2007-05-05, 7:13 pm

On Sat, 5 May 2007, J Jay <jjay@no.com> wrote:
>In article <463b9aaf$0$2241$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>, nospam@nospam.nospam
>says...
>Is all of this BS slowly leading up to a question about PGP or GnuPG?
>J Jay

You're new here, aren't you?

This privacy.li guy (nospam and traveller69 adn whatever other socks he's
using at the moment) will just go on and on trying to defend the
indefensible, until everyone else just gets disgusted and gives up.

nospam

2007-05-05, 7:13 pm

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007, J Jay <jjay@no.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You're new here, aren't you?
>
> This privacy.li guy (nospam and traveller69 adn whatever other socks he's
> using at the moment) will just go on and on trying to defend the
> indefensible, until everyone else just gets disgusted and gives up.
>

thank you for the update, we almost forgot our mission ! LOL
now go cry to your pimp XXXXX

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2007-05-05, 7:13 pm

On Sat, 05 May 2007, nospam <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>thank you for the update, we almost forgot our mission ! LOL
>now go cry to your pimp XXXXX

Pimp? Engineers don't have pimps.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2007-05-05, 7:13 pm

nobrain/travelerpuppet/eggtard/adem/adminus farted:

> thank you for the update, we almost forgot our mission ! LOL

Nobody ever accused you of being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

> now go cry to your pimp XXXXX

Never gonna happen, you're just not that convincing, but being that
you're also only marginally literate could I get a ruling on the above
bit of gibberish just for amusement value?

Did you mean to direct someone to their "pimp XXXXX", as in one of the
other penis challenged members of your litter?

Or were you trying to insinuate that the person you're replying to is a
XXXXX, with a pimp.... identical to one of the other penis challenged
members of your litter?

Please take as long as you need to sort out the difference in your own
mind, we understand completely your struggle with language skills.

traveller 66

2007-05-06, 1:13 am

On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:53:58 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> nobrain/travelerpuppet/eggtard/adem/adminus farted:
>
>
> Nobody ever accused you of being the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>
>
> Never gonna happen, you're just not that convincing, but being that
> you're also only marginally literate could I get a ruling on the above
> bit of gibberish just for amusement value?
>
> Did you mean to direct someone to their "pimp XXXXX", as in one of the
> other penis challenged members of your litter?
>
> Or were you trying to insinuate that the person you're replying to is a
> XXXXX, with a pimp.... identical to one of the other penis challenged
> members of your litter?
>
> Please take as long as you need to sort out the difference in your own
> mind, we understand completely your struggle with language skills.

Flush/Anono Troll/Puppet

Anonymous

2007-05-06, 7:11 am

traveller 66 <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:53:58 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
> Flush/Anono Troll/Puppet

Forget to change socks again, "eggplant"?

ROTFL!

Ari

2007-05-06, 7:11 am