I want to take part in discussions which I don't want my ISP
snooping around in.

Can my ISP see my Usenet traffic to the extent that the ISP can see
if I post to or download from a given newsgroup if I use a
newsserver which is not operated by them?

For example, I use BTopenworld as an ISP in the UK.  If I post this
Usenet message via the independent Astra newsserver then can
BTopenworld see what I have read/posted by examining the traffic
passing through their server.  Can they tell which newsgroups I
used to post or read?

If they CAN do this they how EASY and how LIKELY is it for them to
actually do it?

---

And what about for protocols used by Kazaa and other file sharing
prgrams?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <94C495766E51A628D1@64.62.191.200>, smith@yahoo.com says...
> I want to take part in discussions which I don't want my ISP
> snooping around in.
>
> Can my ISP see my Usenet traffic to the extent that the ISP can see
> if I post to or download from a given newsgroup if I use a
> newsserver which is not operated by them?
>
> For example, I use BTopenworld as an ISP in the UK.  If I post this
> Usenet message via the independent Astra newsserver then can
> BTopenworld see what I have read/posted by examining the traffic
> passing through their server.  Can they tell which newsgroups I
> used to post or read?
>
> If they CAN do this they how EASY and how LIKELY is it for them to
> actually do it?

Yes, your ISP can easily see traffic going across their network.  They
can easily see and save the contents of said traffic when it is
unencrypted.  If you want your ISP to be unable to see the contents of
your usenet traffic, find a service that offers SSL with their usenet.

/steve
--
Protect yourself on-line.  Hide your identifying details in e-mail,
usenet, and more. A privacy service like no other.
No one gives you more control over your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

They have every packet going through their servers so of course they could
see what you are doing. The odds are slim, most ISP's could care less where
you go or what you post until they get a subpoena. It can be done easily as
the Feds have shown but must be targeted by IP or username.
--

 ****************************************
********

g-w


"Regal" <smith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94C495766E51A628D1@64.62.191.200...
> I want to take part in discussions which I don't want my ISP
> snooping around in.
>
> Can my ISP see my Usenet traffic to the extent that the ISP can see
> if I post to or download from a given newsgroup if I use a
> newsserver which is not operated by them?
>
> For example, I use BTopenworld as an ISP in the UK.  If I post this
> Usenet message via the independent Astra newsserver then can
> BTopenworld see what I have read/posted by examining the traffic
> passing through their server.  Can they tell which newsgroups I
> used to post or read?
>
> If they CAN do this they how EASY and how LIKELY is it for them to
> actually do it?
>
> ---
>
> And what about for protocols used by Kazaa and other file sharing
> prgrams?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Regal <smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
[deleted]
> For example, I use BTopenworld as an ISP in the UK.  If I post this
> Usenet message via the independent Astra newsserver then can
> BTopenworld see what I have read/posted by examining the traffic
> passing through their server.

It (the traffic) does not "pass through their server", or or least not
through a "server" in the normal meaning of that term. Your system (PC)
does have a 'direct' TCP/IP connection to the Astra newsserver, i.e.
there are no intermediate servers (as there for example *might* be for a
web-browser connection).

>			         Can they tell which newsgroups I
> used to post or read?
>
> If they CAN do this they how EASY and how LIKELY is it for them to
> actually do it?

Yes, I'm sure they can monitor the TCP/IP traffic and hence the NNTP
traffic which travels on top of that. Whether they do it and whether
they are *allowed* to do it, is probably a matter of their ToS (Terms
of Service) or/and UK law.

[deleted]

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

sorry to bother you kulm_nd but is subpoena?
allan
"kulm_nd" <kn@NOISP.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:0LTcc.9163$X44.4752@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> They have every packet going through their servers so of course they could
> see what you are doing. The odds are slim, most ISP's could care less
where
> you go or what you post until they get a subpoena. It can be done easily
as
> the Feds have shown but must be targeted by IP or username.
> --
>
>  ****************************************
********
>
> g-w
>
>
> "Regal" <smith@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:94C495766E51A628D1@64.62.191.200... 
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Stephen K. Gielda" wrote:

>... find a service that offers SSL with their usenet.

If the messages appear on a public newsgroup anyway, what's the purpose
of encrypting it in flight?

SSL doesn't make sense, unless it goes via an anonymizer. Even then the
really paranoid would want a random-delayed anonymizer to prevent
identification by timing.

-- Lassi

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

A subpoena is a court issued order to turn over certain information such as
who the person behind the username really is and their address etc. There
needs to be probable cause to believe a law has been violated or there is
evidence of a crime before the court issues a subpoena (except under the
Patriot Act which can use a special secret court). The Feds can get a
subpoena to attach what used to be called Carnivor (hardware and software
attachment) to watch the traffic of a single user.

The RIAA has tried them to find out who is downloading and uploading music
files through civil not criminal proceedings.
--

 ****************************************
********

g-w


"Allan Birnbaum Ditlevsen" <abditlevsen@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:40740c6e$0$252$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> sorry to bother you kulm_nd but is subpoena?
> allan
> "kulm_nd" <kn@NOISP.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:0LTcc.9163$X44.4752@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com... 
could 
> where 
> as 
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <40741682.340AB164@welho.compromised.invalid>,
lassi.hippelainen@welho.compromised.invalid says...
> "Stephen K. Gielda" wrote:
> 
>
> If the messages appear on a public newsgroup anyway, what's the purpose
> of encrypting it in flight?
>
> SSL doesn't make sense, unless it goes via an anonymizer. Even then the
> really paranoid would want a random-delayed anonymizer to prevent
> identification by timing.

It certainly does make sense, your downloads aren't ending up on a
public newsgroup.  Most people who ask about this are more concerned
with what they download or read and not what they post.

/steve
--
Check out Cotse's Privacy Watch.
A comprehensive information resource.
http://www.cotse.net/privacy/

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:40740ade$0$64611$4a441750@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Regal <smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
> they are *allowed* to do it, is probably a matter of their ToS (Terms
> of Service) or/and UK law.

It is UK law to require traffic data to be retained for a lengthy period -
this is the reason why times of downloads in UK have increased markedly in
recent years. Some interpretations of the law include content data as well
and it is still undecided whether this offends against any rights of privacy
introduced by the Human Rights convention. As you may know there is no real
concept of privacy in the UK other than that imposed by EU directives and
the UK government is widely known as the most nosey and paranoid in the
world.

James

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"kulm_nd" <kn@NOISP.net> wrote in
news:7vVcc.9208$BA4.7488@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:

> A subpoena is a court issued order to turn over certain information
> such as who the person behind the username really is and their address
> etc. There needs to be probable cause to believe a law has been
> violated or there is evidence of a crime before the court issues a
> subpoena (except under the Patriot Act which can use a special secret
> court). The Feds can get a subpoena to attach what used to be called
> Carnivor (hardware and software attachment) to watch the traffic of a
> single user.
>
> The RIAA has tried them to find out who is downloading and uploading
> music files through civil not criminal proceedings.

there is NO anonymity on the internet. subpoena or no subpoena. just about
every single system/hw device/whatever on the net logs. have you any idea
how many for those things your traffic goes through?

a hacker may escape detection. if you are posting your question on public
ng's, you have no chance. so whatever you are doing online, if it's
illegal, just don't do it. don't be stupid.
--
Rowdy Yates
-------------------------------
"the man who tried and failed"

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]