Re: Anonymizing Scam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nomen wrote: >Rather than make accusations about other people, why not eliminate the >middleman and make accusations about yourself? End your hypocrisy. Say, >"I may be sucking up to law enforcement agencies. I may be recording >people's browsing habits and supplying them to interested parties, >with appropriate compensation. I am not deserving of trust, in fact I >may be concealing betrayal. I don't have a problem with this at all: a symmetric lack of trust the most honest basis for a relationship there is. Wouldn't you rather associate with sharp-witted people who are on the ball than gullible quibblers fretting over at what point they get to suspend their critical faculties and give you a free pass in the name of comraderie? Trust is overrated. Anyone who asks for it without earning it is either a fool or a huckster. Either way, asking for it is a sure sign it shouldn't be given. Where do you imagine the term "confidence artist" came from, anyway. > Nothing I have done in the past should be >interpreted in any way to assume that I will not change in the future >and begin selling out my friends and those who rely on me." >You believe that this is the attitude we should take towards you, don't >you? Why not come forward and say it. If you don't think we should >trust you, say so. If you don't think you deserve our trust, admit it. So be it: Whatever I have to say about it is quite irrelevant--it shouldn't be my place to do your thinking for you. What you do trumps what you say every time, so it's really a non-issue. If you don't know enough about what I do to decide for yourself, what possible difference could my reassuring you what a good little girl I really am make. So no, I don't want your blind trust at all. >You don't need to search out other people's flaws when your own are so >much closer at hand. Where's the flaw in saying trust should be more than an empty word. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPAP/lvg5Tuca7bfvEQKmpACgsd/w68mGGcmQbxSt0R5tlCV9IZEAn2xT VC68ga3/VMWQFpTQ6v1RUcnZ =KJYg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Anonymizing Scam
John Young writes: > Criticism of anonymizers and remailers and this list is a healthy > as criticizing any reputable, and disreputable, private or publice > means of communication. > > Fending off criticism by saying past performance and reputation > deserves trust is a hoot and is also a hackneyed reply of someone > who is concealing betrayal, or to put it more politely, has not > yet learned how to earn trust continuously rather than bank it > for unearned profit. These are good points, but the mystery is why you don't apply them to yourself. Why not challenge your own reputation and trustworthiness? You are no better than Lance Cottrell, are you? You serve law enforcement agencies as well as private individuals. You are in much the same position as Lance to learn about sensitive browsing habits which would be of interest to the government. You are no more deserving of trust than he or anyone else. Rather than make accusations about other people, why not eliminate the middleman and make accusations about yourself? End your hypocrisy. Say, "I may be sucking up to law enforcement agencies. I may be recording people's browsing habits and supplying them to interested parties, with appropriate compensation. I am not deserving of trust, in fact I may be concealing betrayal. Nothing I have done in the past should be interpreted in any way to assume that I will not change in the future and begin selling out my friends and those who rely on me." You believe that this is the attitude we should take towards you, don't you? Why not come forward and say it. If you don't think we should trust you, say so. If you don't think you deserve our trust, admit it. You don't need to search out other people's flaws when your own are so much closer at hand.
Re: Anonymizing Scam
Yes indeed. I actually saw several similar statements from other people. The one from John Young seemed to have the widest distribution, so it was the one I replied to. -Lance At 12:17 AM -0500 11/27/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Perhaps Lance meant: "It seems a hypocritical position for *any* >cypherpunk to take." > >-Declan > > >On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 07:06:59PM -0800, Tim May wrote, quoting Lance: >> >> "It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to >> take." >> >> >> Assuming that John Young speaks for "Cyphepunks" is bizarre. >> >> >> --Tim May >> "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any >> member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to >> others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient >> warrant." --John Stuart Mill -- Lance M. Cottrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com
Re: Anonymizing Scam
There are a variety of ways to anonymize surfing and email besides anonymizer services and remailers. Government agencies likely use all these. Reasons for the agencies to use anonymizers and remailers is to learn how they work and to influence operators by purchases, complaints and praise, and to spit in the soup, that is, to raise doubts about the services promises of confidentiality. The same reasons apply for subscribing to this list, for cultivating informants, for spoofing identities, for creating dissension among dissenters, for panicking the populace, for promising impossible assurance. Criticism of anonymizers and remailers and this list is a healthy as criticizing any reputable, and disreputable, private or publice means of communication. Fending off criticism by saying past performance and reputation deserves trust is a hoot and is also a hackneyed reply of someone who is concealing betrayal, or to put it more politely, has not yet learned how to earn trust continuously rather than bank it for unearned profit. Untested trust is no trust at all. And those who most often promise trust are not to be trusted, whether highly reputable individual, government of the free world, or very best friend. Paranoia is no defense against being suckered any more than being a hermit, and believing you are a trusted insider of a trustworthy group is suckerdom par excellance. Dropping your guard: don't. Especially with those of impeccable reputation.
Re: Anonymizing Scam
On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 06:24 PM, Anonymous wrote: > The following message by Lance Cottrell responding to John Young's > accusations was sent to the cypherpunks list but apparently never > appeared here. > > > > Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:15:16 -0800 > To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Lance M. Cottrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Anonymizing Scam > Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is > absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have > earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of > conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs > for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to > take. > "It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to take." Assuming that John Young speaks for "Cyphepunks" is bizarre. --Tim May "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." --John Stuart Mill
Re: Anonymizing Scam
The following message by Lance Cottrell responding to John Young's accusations was sent to the cypherpunks list but apparently never appeared here. Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:15:16 -0800 To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Lance M. Cottrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Anonymizing Scam Given how widely know my email address is, I am saddened that people would post this kind of unsubstantiated rumor without any attempt to check on the validity. Anonymizer has always offered its services to all comers. This has always included law enforcement. They have used our services to keep an eye on certain websites for many years, without tipping them off to the focus of their interests. Seeing "fbi.gov" in the log files is a bit of a giveaway. They have no special access to our systems, and no ability to monitor our users. Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to take. -Lance Cottrell At 5:34 PM -0500 11/23/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Status: U >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:02:10 -0800 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Anonymizing Scam >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell. >Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs? >Worse, has there ever been? > >- > > >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html > >One company that is still making money off privacy is >Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers >anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The >company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance >Cottrell. > >"We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most >people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company, >spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where >they're going." > >Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to >market its service to corporations, including law and investigation >firms, and the U.S. government, he said. > >"Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially >since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye >on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring. > >- > >The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its >privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to >continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always >the need for money, the Judas rationale. > >Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or >never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the >service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect. > >Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected >against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS, >like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to >MD. > >What does this say about commercial anonymizing services, >and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot >AES? > >--- end forwarded text > > >-- >- >R. A. Hettinga >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' -- Lance M. Cottrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com
Re: Anonymizing Scam
"Nomen" makes a reasonable point. There is nothing objectionable about Lance selling anonymizer.com accounts to the Feds (or with a crypto-company selling crypto-ware to the Feds, not least since they'll get the software or service one way or another). If you treat 'em the same way you treat any other paying company, and I suspect that is the case with Lance, John's allegation of "sucking up" to espionage and law enforcement agencies is uncalled for. -Declan On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 11:10:08PM +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: > John Young writes: > > > Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell. > > Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs? > > Worse, has there ever been? > > Are you implying that Lance Cottrell is making anonymous surfing data > available to security agencies? That is a strong accusation and if you > want to make it, you should do so explicitly. You are calling him a > liar and a fraud. > > Nothing in the article you quote gives you any foundation for such > a claim. All it says is that agencies are using Anonymizer to browse > anonymously, just like its other customers. Any crypto technology, if > it is truly useful, can be used by government agencies as well as others. > > One might as well accuse you of conspiracy since cryptome often serves > TLAs: You fraud! You are saving people's access patterns to your files > and making them available to the police! How dare you! > > These accusations are as unfounded as those you made against Lance. > Those who make such claims should provide evidence and not innuendo. > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html > > > > One company that is still making money off privacy is > > Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers > > anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The > > company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance > > Cottrell. > > > > "We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most > > people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company, > > spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where > > they're going." > > > > Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to > > market its service to corporations, including law and investigation > > firms, and the U.S. government, he said. > > > > "Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially > > since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye > > on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring. > > > > - > > > > The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its > > privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to > > continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always > > the need for money, the Judas rationale. > > > > Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or > > never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the > > service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect. > > > > Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected > > against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS, > > like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to > > MD. > > > > What does this say about commercial anonymizing services, > > and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot > > AES?
