On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:42:27 -0700
Rayzer <ray...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/15/2016 10:12 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
>
> > limitations are understood and pessimistic assumptions are made, of
> > course.
>
> This is what I've been saying all along. The assumption is ONLY that
> it buys you some time to GTFO of that internet cafe and down the
> road.
Oh yes. That's how 'hidden' services operate. You 'get out of
the internet cafe' when the DEA comes to get your server and
shoot you.
> With Tails, you get a level up in anonymity perhaps because the
> machine used is at least hard, if not impossible to identify.
And your credentials for making that kind of bullshit claim are
what, exactly. Rhetorical question of course. Spare me your
bullshit, you tor-MILITARY-CORPORATION-bot.
>
> Case in point: The local internet provider here uses AOL upstream, and
> one day, while torrenting (transmission, full encryption on) a music
> album , my supervisor came in and asked if I was running a torrent
> client... that she'd received a call from the local provider about
> someone bootlegging. She's a sympathetic sort so I say 'yeah' and told
> her what it was... A WARNER album.
>
> AOL/Time/Warner is apparently sniffing every packet passing through
> their servers identified as a torrent for bootleg content. It took
> about an hour for AOL > Local provider and a phone call from them.
>
> Rr
>
> (Ps, to those who collect such things note gpg sig update)
>
