On Mar 28, 2004, at 9:05, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Anonymizer is set up to prevent *businesses*, stalkers, and small-time crooks like spammers, from seeing your behavior on the net and annoying you there.
What's he going to do when uncle Fed shows up with guns? Have a shootout or something?
This is exactly my point. You and I are saying essentially the same things.
Anonymizer cannot be trusted with your life & liberty. It is the equivalent of
"kid sister cryptography". Lance, however, does not seem to view it this way.
And, if you're upset that you can't *surf* anonymously, sure as hell don't blame Lance.
What I'm blaming Lance for is snake-oil marketing. When someone posted
"Anonymizer revealed the identity of a customer to the FBI", Lance posted
"Anonymizer would never do such a thing". But *of course* he would,
because there's a metaphorical (if not real) gun pointed at his head.
I'm not "pissing and moaning that a single-hop anonymity service doesn't provide perfect anonymity", I'm calling Lance and Anonymizer on their false claims. Lance and Anonymizer should both be upfront and honest about exactly what level of "anonymity" Anonymizer /can/ provide.
Then I would not have anything to say on this thread. I agree, the service is
certainly useful for some things, and the world is better with it than without
it.
And, finally, one last thing. After 5 or 6 years of it from Tim, who started this list, and the original physical meetings, it's no secret I've gotten really tired of the "need killing" chest-puffing
*I* did not say anyone needed killing, so I'm assuming this part of your rant
was targeted at someone else.
--bgt
