You're clueless. Ian is referring to companies whose business revolves around tracking usage habits of the Internet (usually for marketing reasons), not to mention other "organizations" that are monitoring traffic for other reasons.
If you don't understand how easy it is to cross-reference data from a multitude of sources that are all *publicy* available, then you don't have the technical understanding of the Internet to be debating on this list. With the passing of the Patriot Act (have u read it?) the authorities do not need any reason whatsoever to request that a company provide information on a specific person or list of persons. And this is done legally! What about the thousands of hackers who can break into Hotmail, Yahoo or any other site connected to the net? *This* happens constantly, and is probably the biggest problem on the internet wrt anonymity. In New York, they setup a "Do Not Call" list and asked everyone who didn't want to be called on their phone to get their name on this list. About a month later hackers stole the list, sold it to an unnamed marketing company and now they're getting unsolicited phone calls. The only way to guarantee freedom of information is in a system like Freenet, where all data is considered "Free", not just what you or any authority in uniform declare. Matthew Findley wrote: > Least I admited I was wrong > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general/253 > Ahem? > > But I never said I was anonymous. I was only mistaken in the fact that > your > IP would only be reiveled if you ran your own mail server. As it turns > out > it is also reveled if I forward mail to a server. I could still use their > web interface to be anonymous or could use a public computer. > And so what if you found out my ip address, I can changed it with the > click > of a button. And so what if you know I live in riverview... that narrows > it down to about 1 in 12,000 people. > You would still not be able to find out anything about me that I didn't > want you to know. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Matthew Findley" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, > August 08, 2004 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT) > > >> On 8 Aug 2004, at 01:49, Matthew Findley wrote: >> > Ok, I'll admit I was partly wrong. >> >> "Partly"! That's quite an admission for someone who claimed they would >> be anonymous yet who I was able to tell them the tiny little town they >> lived in with about 20 seconds of research based on the information >> contained in one email :-) >> >> The web is *not* anonymous for any useful definition of the word, and >> it is pretty clear that you lack the technical expertise to say any >> different. Please have the maturity to admit you were wrong, not >> "partly" wrong, completely 100% wrong. >> >> Ian. -- Jay Oliveri GnuPG ID: 0x5AA5DD54 FCPTools Maintainer www.sf.net/users/joliveri _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
