On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:15:08 +0100 (CET), George Orwell wrote: > traveler 66 wrote:
>> That does it, I'm using cotse.
> Everything is not cotse. You use this inter-service rivalry thing you > made up as some kind of smokescreen. Cotse is recommended quite a bit > because they offer a lot more than others for a lot less than those > others, they have proven themselves reliable, and because they've been > straight shooters about what they provide from the get go. That is the > only reason they are recommended so much. This is not a cotse ganging > up on poor little privacy.li thing you desperately want to make it seem > like. That is pure smokescreen you use to try to hide behind.
> Lets clear away the bullshit. Lets look at the very things you > supposedly stood behind privacy.li for: Safer because of off shore; > knowing some way to make a single hop SSH tunnel truly anonymous that no > other service knew how to do; not having any logs; and being very > secure. These are your stated reasons for so rabidly supporting > privacy.li. Lets look at each.
I've only said I have a news account with them, anything else is made up trolls among other flames in here.
> Safer because of off shore, does not matter what local law is, off shore > adds red tape - Well, here we have an actual international investigation > and the results. The police, themselves, say that jurisdiction didn't > matter, they all just worked together and helped each other. Didn't add > red tape, removed it because local law didn't even require subpoena.
Findnot says it best when they tell you there is no user identifiable information on the secured servers. Somehow, (and I don't know because I haven't read anything official that mentions any privacy service, only trolls in here), I don't think any privacy outfit is going to run interference for creeps like the ones that got busted.
> Secret method of making a single hop SSH tunnel truly anonymous - This > one is just laughable, at the same time you criticize Tor as being > flawed because of a paper written about an attack that a single hop > proxy is even more vulnerable to, yes single hop proxies cannot be > anonymous.
Metropipe, privacy.li, trilight, privacyoffshore all offer non identifiable proxie tunnels (don't show they are proxies), as well as full Tor access points. Not bad actually.
> No logs - You trumpeted this one enough. Used Findnot as an example, > even had Findnot admin in here for a little while trying to convince > others that what was said was true, absolutely no logs. argued up and > down about how some secret method allowed ironclad security without any > logs at all anywhere. Well the admins you brought in here slowly faded > out of that argument. Findnot even put a notice on their page about how > they do indeed have logs (a complete 180 degree turn for them). Other > services just quietly removed the claims. Not privacy.li, even after > their admin admitted looking through the logs to see that recent > visitors had all come from Schneier's site they still claim it.
No logs as I've read in here means surfing logs on the various policy abiding customers. I don't ever remember anyone saying no security or maintenance logs. You're right about findnot, at first they had no logs of surfing at all, but I guess they had abuse to the extent they had to keep them for up to 5 days.
> It's very secure - We saw that it was configured to defaults and was > using outdated software versions, versions with known remote > vulnerabilities. This was easy to do, query the versions, run the > versions against the vulnerability databases. Not only that but we saw > that default installs had been left, not even removing test pages that > the setup instructions say to remove after setup. That's not security.
I don't know all the tech aspects, but I've seen what's probably 2 people attacking every privacy service in here except one with nothing but FUD.
> Everything, absolutely everything you fought about has seen privacy.li > demonstrated wrong. Yet still you persist. You simply have to have > some kind of monetary stake in privacy.li. Nobody can be that blindly dumb.
Believe what you want, all I have is a news account. I just don't like the way everyone in here is flamed, trolled and attacked unless they're from one particular privacy provider who is the only one that is "honest".
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this > non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real > reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an > di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system > Per maggiori informazioni |For more info > https://www.mixmaster.it
> nos...@trilightzone.org wrote: >> can't take it if a happy customer writes in defense of privacy.li > Your happy customer is a confessed child molester.
Wrong idiot. I confessed to enjoying child erotic art. That has nothing to do with either sex nor molestation except in the perverted minds of those so conditioned they can't see anything in nudity beyond sex. The problem is in your own mind. Don't put words in my mouth.
> Please don't let that stop you from rushing to a perverts' defense. > It's better bad press than anyone else could ever come up with.
The perversion is in your own outlook.
> Everyone take note of what privacy.lie sock puppets stand up for. > Baby rapers.
Never raped anyone. And define babies. You know nothing but cliches. No babies in my posts. Young and adolescent girls showing off for the camera knowing exactly what they're doing are not babies.
And you're so far off topic it's obvious you're grasping at straws. The topic is privacy and anonimity.
Nomen Nescio wrote: > Bullshit. Privacy.li is not a sting, if any service is a sting > it is the one spamming all over the pedo groups for customers,
Sting, honeypot, compromised, run by incompetent asshats... all the same thing from the customer's perspective. It's an as of yet unflushed toilet regardless.
> UA. Any service doing this guaranteed themselves a close > investigation in this bust. The fact they continue doing it > speaks volumes. However, back to the subject at had, > Privacy.li's only involvement in this was putting their servers > in a place where the police are give free access for the asking. > They actually removed protection for their users instead of > adding it. They are ignorant of what they profess to offer, yes. > Committing some kind of online fraud, probably. But they are no > sting.
Maybe not by design, but possibly at this point. It also compromises any other business they operate under. Some we already know about, others we may not. So the gross incompetence and criminal behavior of an individual or small group of miscreants may have wider ranging implications than we even suspect.
Even to those who should have been closest to him, an Anderson man arrested in a child pornography investigation that stretched across the globe seems to be a something of an enigma.
“I didn’t know a lot about him other than he got in trouble with drugs and now this, which is a complete surprise to me,” Bob Lakey, Covington, Tenn., said of his stepbrother Gary W. Lakey.
Gary Lakey, 54, was arrested without incident by FBI special agents at his Anderson home Friday morning, said Special Agent Wendy Osbourne. Osbourne couldn’t immediately provide his Anderson address, but he lived in the 2400 block of East Seventh Street when he was arrested in 2002 on a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge.
Lakey faces several federal charges involving child pornography, including engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, advertisement and transportation of child pornography, receiving child pornography, and obstruction of justice.
He made an initial court appearance in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on Monday, but was expected to be taken to Pensacola, Fla., where the indictment was unsealed in federal court Friday. Dixie Morrow, managing assistant U.S. attorney, said a court date hasn’t been set for Lakey there.
If convicted, Lakey faces at least 20 years imprisonment and up to life behind bars.
Lakey was one 12 American men arrested in the worldwide investigation into child pornography that originated in Australia.
Lakey went by the screen name “Eggplant,” and was one of two Indiana residents named in the 30-page indictment. Marvin Lambert, 33, of Indianapolis, went by the screen name “Methuselah.”
The 12 men formed an organization that used Internet news groups to trade in images and videos of child pornography over a two-year period, beginning in August 2006, according to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice.
The images and videos depicted “prepubescent children, including toddlers, engaged in various sexual and sadistic acts,” according to the release. “The group utilized sophisticated encryption methods to avoid detection and traded over 400,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse.”
According to the justice department, the charges were developed after a law enforcement official was able to gain membership into the group.
On May 8, Lakey allegedly posted on the news group a list of videos showing child pornography and directions on how fellow members could download them.
“Hi Gang, More Oldies found,” he wrote, according to the indictment. “This time a few misc vids...”
Bob Lakey, a Madison Heights High School graduate, said he was surprised to learn that his stepbrother had been arrested on the child pornography charges. He knew Gary Lakey was arrested in 2002 for marijuana possession, but thought that was the extent of his criminal activity.
“Apparently, this was an elaborate scheme,” Bob Lakey said. “I really didn’t think he’s that bright, honestly.”
The last time Bob Lakey spoke to his stepbrother was in 1994, at his stepmother’s funeral. Their conversation then was brief, he said. Bob Lakey hasn’t lived in Anderson since 1960, and said he didn’t speak with his stepbrother very often due to the geographic distance between them.
“I really don’t know a lot about him,” Bob Lakey said.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:37:10 -0400, No One wrote: >> Mena is my home town, Mr. Anonymousie.
> Nah, that's just another lie, from the Mother-of-liars himself. > It's way too obvious. I think you're losing the skill you used to have > at lying so well.
I can't even begin to believe you thought I was serious.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:37:10 -0400, No One wrote: >> Of course. now go knock your anonymous brains out researching it, >> CheckTaker.
> I've got a better idea, Gimpy. How about this?
> *You* tell *us* the name of this "company" where you are supposedly an > "employer" at. > That way you prove that you have right all along, and that you haven't > been lying about it the whole time. > Now doesn't that sound like a good idea to you? > And, we won't be thinking that you're a stay-at-home, good-for-nothing > lazy bum, > just taking checks from Public Assistance, i.e. Welfare Checks.
> There's absolutely *no* reason for you *not* to give us the name of the > company where you claim to be an "employer" at.
Nomen Nescio wrote: > Bullshit. Privacy.li is not a sting, if any service is a sting it is > the one spamming all over the pedo groups for customers, UA. Any > service doing this guaranteed themselves a close investigation in this > bust. The fact they continue doing it speaks volumes. However, back to > the subject at had, Privacy.li's only involvement in this was putting > their servers in a place where the police are give free access for the > asking. They actually removed protection for their users instead of > adding it. They are ignorant of what they profess to offer, yes. > Committing some kind of online fraud, probably. But they are no sting.
I agree with that, Privacy.li 's claim that they kept no logs was probably a scam to get more customers and more money, but not any sting.
UltimateAnonymity, has all the numbers to be a sting, it is impossible to run a privacy service under those prices, the money must come in from other sources I suspect, come on...life membership at $58?
Yeah sure.And who pays the server bandwith, the domain name, the staff,the taxes, and so much more involved.
When I first found UA a few years back I though they would take the money then shut down the company and that is your life membership gone, but seeing they are still in business, I can just think of an NSA operation, with spamming rights included so they even look half criminal.
The NSA wants as many people as possible using their sting operation and the best way of doing that is making it as cheap as possible.
I dont have any proof, but common sense tells me it is impossible to run the service on $58 for life, not even $100.
> When I joined U-A in 1998 I paid $21 for my lifetime membership and I still > use it today
You just proved my point, you used UA services for 10 years on $21 dollars charge? WTF, any normal business would have gone bust by now
> I went to a huge privacy/security convention in Los Angeles in 99 or 2000 > and U-A had a booth setup there and they offered their service on CD ( I > got one and still ahve it). I met the two owners both young and both nerds, > no way they were cops.
The NSA is certainly not going around looking like they are cops, and anyway, there is always the possibility of making offers 5 years after the business starts.
>Back then all they offered really was a reliable > remailer (still do) and walkthroughs along with support on setting up > exsiting software along wih an always up to date list of proxies.
I never doubted of their reliability, if an anonymity wants customers they need to be reliable.
> Being a regular user of the service, I have watched them grow tremendously > over the years to keep up with growing demands. When I use the online > support and I do on a regular basis I always talk to the same person (Bill > Collins) who is one of the ones I met at the convention in L.A. (his card > is still in the CD sleave I got from him) so it would appear its still a > two person operation which means low overhead and little costs. I would > imagine they are developing their own software (they were both very nerdy) > which again means low overhead and costs.
I just visited their site, $58 for a life membership, most privacy operations are small, one or two person team developing their own software and using free open source.
Go and google for "renting a linux server unlimited bandwith", that will give you an idea of what it costs.
> You can take it anyway you want it but I speak fact. I dont know if its a > sting or not, my gut says now because I've used them for years. I use Cotse > as well?
Could they not be a sting as well? If your not peddling child porn
> it shouldnt matter.
The most stupid argument I have never heard in my life, you are using a privacy service and you telling me "if you have nothing wrong you have nothing to fear"? What kind of bullshit is that?
You may as well not use UA and Cotse, after all you are not downloading child porn.
Of all you wrote you still did not make it clear how can a business survive on those prices. No way, I have a linux server and I know what it costs, space/bandwith/etc...For a time I considered setting up a VPN server and sell privacy services, I worked out prices, and there is no way on earth you can offer $58 life membership and survive, it does not even pay for one year.
Thank you for making clear you paid $21 to UA for 10 years of using them it surely is a good bargain I dont doubt it, how they do it, is what escapes all business logical explanation.
It certainly explains all the spamming, what it does not explain is why they are spamming to death little known groups full of criminals and do not spam alt.privacy.
> It certainly explains all the spamming, what it does not explain is why > they are spamming to death little known groups full of criminals and do > not spam alt.privacy.
> I guess their customer target is not us.
LOL, people into porn have $$ to spend on their wares or to hide their wares :) Poeple in here on the otherhand are skeptical whine babies who want everything for FREE. Why waste the effort, go where the money is. Just good business sense if you ask me.
traveler 66 wrote: > I've only said I have a news account with them, anything else is > made up trolls among other flames in here.
You're the biggest, most immature Privacy.LIE shill-puppet on Usenet motherfucker. You lie for them, repeat their lies, and disrupt discussions of them and/or legitimate services as best you can now that you've been recognized for the shitstain that you are and mostly ignored and taunted.
> Findnot says it best when they tell you there is no user > identifiable information on the secured servers. Somehow, (and I
Except that there is. Privacy.LIE, FindSnot, PrivacyOutTheDoor, et al, are nothing but a collection of bald faced liars. Every one of yoru servers have standard logs complete with IP addresses at the VERY least, or they're horribly insecure. And even if you slimy bastards did manage to run for a time with no logs, any Tom, Dick, or Harry law enforcement official can waltz in and force the companies you cheap bastards rent space from to do it because you don't give a damn about anything but margins. Consequently your servers are in privacy shitholes.
> don't know because I haven't read anything official that mentions > any privacy service, only trolls in here), I don't think any > privacy outfit is going to run interference for creeps like the > ones that got busted.
So how much was your bail, and are you going to kill yourself before you have to go back to court.
> Metropipe, privacy.li, trilight, privacyoffshore all offer non > identifiable proxie tunnels (don't show they are proxies), as > well as full Tor access points. Not bad actually.
What a total load of horse shit! You can't RUN a proxy that can't be trivially identified as such you ignorant buddoon, either directly my merely scanning the IP, or indirectly by researchign who owns it.
More Privacy.LIE bullshit parroted by the A#1 Privacy.LIE shill-puppet. And just a few paragraphs ago you were blubbering about "only having a news account". What a piss poor liar you are.
> No logs as I've read
Nobody really gives a flying fuck what your spin on the subject is. You're a congenital liar. You told 6 or 8 in this message alone already. The FACT of the matter is you and everyone like you keeps logs, or you're so worthless and insecure nobody wants to deal with you anyway.
Not that you're secure to begin with mind you, as we've seen from several scans of your shithole servers, you wouldn't know a secure server if it crawled up your ass and set fire to your spleen.
> I don't know all the tech aspects, but I've seen what's probably > 2 people attacking every privacy service in here except one with > nothing but FUD.
EVERYONE kicks your ass here liar. You only wish it were one or two poeple, but the fact is you and your reputation are so far down the crapper you command no respect from anyone. And let's not forget that it's you, personally, who has been caught red handed playing your juvenile little sock puppet games.
No liar, it's exactly the opposite of your fish story. It's DOZENS of people hammering away at you, and probably you alone.
> Believe what you want,
We believe what we see. You're a fuckwit no matter what you spend money on. You spew lies and nonsense, disrupt, and haven't backed up any of your bullshit with anything but more of the same since you got here. And now we have absolute proof that you and your snake oil scam service are not only a bunch of child molesting scumbags, but every bit as insecure ans easy to compromise as everyone has been saying all along.
It really was only a matter of time motherfucker. It all crumbled, just like everyone predicted. Now even the pedophile trash you built the service to protect doesn't trust you.
And that's taking pathetic to an all new level, loser.
Ari wrote: > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:37:10 -0400, No One wrote:
>>> Mena is my home town, Mr. Anonymousie. >> Nah, that's just another lie, from the Mother-of-liars himself. >> It's way too obvious. I think you're losing the skill you used to have >> at lying so well.
> I can't even begin to believe you thought I was serious.
All I can do is feel sorry for you and your idiocy if you are unable to equate calling someone a liar with knowing they are not serious about what they say. Does the term "It's way too obvious." mean anything to you?
Only someone with the mental age of a twelve-year-old would use an expression like that.
With every post you expose more and more that you're nothing but a simple-minded illiterate, and nothing that anyone here should be concerned with. You're like a recurring childhood nightmare.
But you can instantly rectify all of that by simply giving us the *name* of the "company or business" where you claim to be an "employer". Otherwise, it's more than obvious that you can do nothing but lie. Everything you think, or say, or write is a blatant lie. And everybody knows that about you. You cannot hide that fact. You can't cover it up with more lies. Everybody knows everything you say is a lie.
You are the Mother-of-liars. You are *not* to be taken seriously. Did you get it that time?
Ari wrote: > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:37:10 -0400, No One wrote:
>>> Of course. now go knock your anonymous brains out researching it, >>> CheckTaker. >> I've got a better idea, Gimpy. How about this?
>> *You* tell *us* the name of this "company" where you are supposedly an >> "employer" at. >> That way you prove that you have right all along, and that you haven't >> been lying about it the whole time. >> Now doesn't that sound like a good idea to you? >> And, we won't be thinking that you're a stay-at-home, good-for-nothing >> lazy bum, >> just taking checks from Public Assistance, i.e. Welfare Checks.
>> There's absolutely *no* reason for you *not* to give us the name of the >> company where you claim to be an "employer" at.
>> Unless....this has all been One Big Lie....
> I fess up, you win, CHECKTAKER. lol
Well, finally you admit to being a liar!! Now don't you feel better? It must be a load off your back.
But I wouldn't exactly call it a "win". I mean, defeating you was easy. I was using the age-old tactic "Persistence overcomes resistance." It works every time.
And, I don't really "take" my check. In fact, I don't ever see it. It's automatically deposited into my bank account each month. But I understand why you would use that word, when you have to go down to the Public Assistance Office and "take" your welfare check each week. ;)
> nos...@trilightzone.org wrote: >> can't take it if a happy customer writes in defense of privacy.li > Your happy customer is a confessed child molester.
Wrong idiot. I confessed to enjoying child erotic art. That has nothing to do with either sex nor molestation except in the perverted minds of those so conditioned they can't see anything in nudity beyond sex. The problem is in your own mind. Don't put words in my mouth.
> Please don't let that stop you from rushing to a perverts' defense. > It's better bad press than anyone else could ever come up with.
The perversion is in your own outlook.
> Everyone take note of what privacy.lie sock puppets stand up for. > Baby rapers.
Never raped anyone. And define babies. You know nothing but cliches. No babies in my posts. Young and adolescent girls showing off for the camera knowing exactly what they're doing are not babies.
And you're so far off topic it's obvious you're grasping at straws. The topic is privacy and anonimity.
We got *all* the privacy.LIE pedo-puppets in a pantie twist this week folks. Sorta like watching a bunch of retards run around the room after someone threw in a lit string of firecrackers.
How's it feel pedo-puppets, to have everything the "trolls" said come true? How's it feel to have to look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you were just handed the most horrible ass kicking you ever could have gotten?
That's right pedo-puppets, in one fell swoop you were positively proved to be a den of filth, and lying cowards who caved when your "can't be touched" asses were on the line.
This is a *great* day for honest privacy services, and we owe it all to you and your puppy-with-a-sock attachment to deception and gross stupidity. We never could have done as much damage to snake oil peddlers like you, had you not been there every day
|
