THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF: PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED HUMAN BEING PATRICK PARIS -- PUNK PATRICK PARIS -- SYPHILITIC PERVERT PATRICK PARIS -- SUCKED ONE SUCKED 'EM ALL Death to the evil e.E.L Eelbasher <<==========>> Subject: Re: please post all nym keys On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, remailer@invalid.com wrote: >-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE----- >Message-type: plaintext > >In <L9EUIQFK38652.5386458333@anonymous.poster> Nomen Nescio ><nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >> I have been unable to find nym keys > >send emails to: >remailer-keys@hod.aarg.net >remailer-keys@blackhole.riot.eu.org >remailer-keys@nym.alias.net >remailer-keys@nym.at >remailer-keys@nym.komite.net >remailer-keys@nym.panta-rhei.eu.org > >and the nymservers will send you their keys. > not! use remailer-key <<==========>> Subject: Re: Proof inside that claiming "no logs" is bullshit! Adminus wrote: > Well, you guys are really either stupid or someone pays you to spread this > FUD. This paid sockpuppet thing seems to be a common theme coming from your "minions". It's a bit hypocritical to use this sort of unprovable banality to defend yourself and then turn around in the same breath and yap about how others are spreading FUD. But then... as do your "minions", so you do also. <shrug> And by the way, any time you care to compare IQ's just let me know. ;) > Can you imagine that privacy.li has a website at http://www.privacy.li, > which of course uses traffic analysis of its WEB SURFING VISITORS, to see > where they come from, what draws most interest, what key words are scoring > high, etc. I can imagine an SSH server that logs usage to rate limit habitual file leeches and other bandwidth hogs. Or to help prevent abuse. What's your point Adminus, that what we can imagine must be true? :) > Any business out there which is not doing this basic analysis > has no clue about what web visitors are interested in, and therefor could > not better or enhance their service... Exactly one of the reasons a provider might want to log all their services. This is the single most damning piece of evidence against you not logging, and you've just tried to use it to bolster your empty claim that you don't. Your logic is utterly FUBAR. > However, this analysis is NOT matched with any individuals, but only in a > generic and general summary. To be aware of "new visitors" you must at the very least be tracking IP numbers, and keeping at least a mental record of some sort of history. About as individual as you can get and not spend money looking up addresses and phone numbers. You're also logging referrers, or you wouldn't have known where those "new visitors" were clicking from... Bruce Schneier's Dog House blog. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html > And to stretch your imagination a little bit further -> > > In contrast to mere web visitors stands the service we offer: > > We offer SSH2-accounts (Privacy-Tunnel) with full TOR entry points on our > servers (TOR-servers running, usage optional) for privacy loving folks, > and we DO NOT LOG ANY of the following: You do log all of the following. All of it, and more. Now... prove me wrong. Or prove you right. Either way. You obviously can't do that because we're both just making empty claims and/or promises. Neither one is any more credible on its own than the other. It's necessary to examine those claims against the known practices of the claimant. Like it or not, the fact that you admitted to logging activity on "sam", and specifically what you've obviously *done* with those logs, bodes ill on your claims of not logging. Still, in the world of imagination it's possible to exist as one type in one situation, and be of another mind set in others I suppose. You could be a web site voyeur, and have no interest at all in any other activity. I could be a big horse with a horn sticking out of my forehead too. It's all academic anyway. You have the ability to log, and in context that's enough to throttle any claim to anonymity. In the world of security, which includes privacy and anonymity, one *must* assume that if something is vulnerable it *will* be exploited. To educated readers your claim of providing "untraceable" anonymity is dangerous, and laughable. Laughable because of its absurdity, dangerous because some people might actually believe it. > 3. we do NOT log your traffic as in how many bytes you transferred 4. we I may be mistaken, but I remember reading somewhere that you had ways of dealing with spam and other abuse. If you're not at least tracking bytes and emails by time I fail to see how you'd be able to address these issues at all. Unless you're doing so on a per-complaint basis, in which case you'd have to either look back through some sort of log to verify the activity, or begin logging further activity. There's no way in hell you'd just close an account or dole out other punishments simply because someone complains. You'd have a user base of zero in no time. > So, we have perfect deniability, if we ever would get asked to produce > evidence about a client. What we don't know, we can not produce - it's > that easy! You have nothing *but* your denial, and it's far from perfect. Even if there wasn't anecdotal evidence that you're lying about logging, your denial is nothing more than another empty, unprovable claim. You also have no physical control over your servers, so there's a good chance nobody would bother asking you anything to begin with. Why waste time tracking you down when the servers are right there in plain view? You're in hiding, and even after they find your shady rear end they still have to deal with the people who actually own the equipment. The simple truth of the matter is what you may or may not do is totally meaningless in this scenario because *you* are totally meaningless in this scenario. To the law you're an insignificant non-problem. Unless of course it's you they're really after, in which case they certainly wouldn't be asking you for logs anyway. :) -- _?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. (@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]-- grok! Registered Linux user #402208