COTSE?

I'm looking for an objective opinion of COTSE. Some people swear by it and
others pridefully use it to launch abuse. How private is it? How
reliable, etc, etc, etc?

Anonymous

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:49:55 -0400, Anonymous typed the following stuff :

> I'm looking for an objective opinion of COTSE. Some people swear by it and
> others pridefully use it to launch abuse. How private is it? How
> reliable, etc, etc, etc?

Hi,

In my experience, very reliable. Email-wise, I love their 'gold-list' and
email aliases. The latter being a clever way to track who might've sold
your address to spammers. No IP address is sent with any mails either.

I also welcomed the SSL feature of their email accounts, and the generous
amount of web space offered. I think the space is something like 50MB, but
you can go over that as long as you don't take the ****.

Very quick customer query responses too.

I personally never got my 'hands dirty' with the web-anonymity tools
www.cotse.net provide, so I can't comment there.

HTH.

Regards,

LLFormat.

Hmmm, one word comes to mind. Carnivore.

Anonymous wrote:
> I'm looking for an objective opinion of COTSE. Some people swear by it and
> others pridefully use it to launch abuse. How private is it? How
> reliable, etc, etc, etc?
>


--


[i know nothing, NOTHING!] -Sergeant Hans Schultz




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:49:55 -0400, Anonymous
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>I'm looking for an objective opinion of COTSE. Some people swear by it and
>others pridefully use it to launch abuse. How private is it? How
>reliable, etc, etc, etc?

The best way to determine this is to use it for yourself. The
cost is so low that you could try it for a month and see if you like
it. If not, you've spent very little. If you do like it, you can
continue by paying for another month.

I've been using COTSE's services for around six months. In
that time, I have had absolutely nothing negative to say about it. Not
one thing.

I have had NO instances of spam or adverts in my COTSE mail
box in this time. No viruses/trojans either. The options for e-mail
which are available are, in my opinion, second to none. You can cook
your mail in just about any conceivable way you can think of with
COTSE.

I know of several people who use COTSE's services to avoid
netkooks and stalkers. I suspect there are a lot more that I don't
know about because they wish themselves to remain anonymous on the
net.

Reliability - in all honesty, every service has reliability
issues at some time or another. I have never had a single problem
connecting to COTSE that wasn't explained immediately to my
satisfaction. That's something else - there's always someone available
to help you, if not personally then at least through e-mail.

I recommend COTSE to my own clients and anyone who asks me
about it (see my sig block). I wouldn't do this if I didn't believe
the place was worthwhile. I also should add that while I'm not a
principal of COTSE, I have volunteered my time and abilities in their
IRC-based helpdesk for a couple of years now. Now seriously - would
anyone do this if they didn't believe in the service fully? I don't
think so.

Anyway, do check COTSE out. It is more than worth the price it
costs. And if you need any help with it, do feel free to ask. I'd be
more than happy to help.

Doc


--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

In article <7097e46dfbb30cdfba3bd1660eaada94@rebleep>, Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>I'm looking for an objective opinion of COTSE. Some people swear by it and
>others pridefully use it to launch abuse. How private is it? How
>reliable, etc, etc, etc?
>


Cotse is excellent - as good as it gets. Cheap, too ($6/month)
considering the range and quality of services.

They won't protect you if you use the service to make death
threats to George Bush - but for protecting your privacy they
will do all that is possible under the law.

Regards,

PS You can never be 100% sure that any privacy service
hasn't been compromised or isn't a honeypot. However, cotse was
around long before 9/11, the folks who run it have a track record
for being privacy defenders, and the quality of service bespeaks
"dedication to the cause." Guaranteed safety? No - not
possible in this life unless you set the service up yourself,
and probably not even then . But you won't find a better
or more trustworthy third-party service.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:49:47 -0400, StopinDaSpam typed the following stuff
:

> Hmmm, one word comes to mind. Carnivore.

I thought about replying with something witty like ;

"Here's another. Encryption". I'm glad I didn't as I'm sure to have
misunderstood your post, and I've no desire to start an argument with
people who probably know more about computer security topics than I ever
will.

I know this is off-topic regarding the original posters' message, but I'm
curious as to how one would avoid the 'Carnivore' trap.

Would encrypting emails attract 'unwanted' attention in the first place ?
As (hopefully) the encryption could not be broken, would the composer of
the mail in question face two or more years in the slammer for *not*
handing over the passphrase ?

I'm asking this as I've been a PGP fan for years. More recently, I've
become something of a GPG fan on Linux.

I'd love to use encryption more, just to be sneaky, but I'm nearly always
faced with the following problems :

1) Most people I communicate with using email, would most likely think that
PGP is a new brand of tea.

2) Or those with slightly longer experience with computers would say;

"Why would you want to encrypt emails ? What are you hiding ?"

Annoying, but a fact of life for me.

Regards,

LLFormat.

In article <Xns93A7857457078collyut@203.59.27.131>,
says...
> nemo (nemo outis) wrote in
> news:7bFKa.292418$ a:
>
> > They won't protect you if you use the service to make death
> > threats to George Bush - but for protecting your privacy they
> > will do all that is possible under the law.
>
> Interesting paradox:
>
> "They won't protect you if you use the service to make death
> threats to George Bush - but for protecting your privacy they
> will do all that is possible under the law."
>
> If they can't protect my information from the people I need protection from
> the most, why would I care how SPAM free or whatever their email services
> are...
>
>
> Uner the law it would be quite easy to protect a customers info from the
> likes of the government. COTSE keep their access logs for a week after
> access, much too long for a privacy sevice.

Five days, it used to be seven, we recently dropped the length of time
we hold them due to the size. I know, only two days shorter than a week
so it still fits to say we have them for a week

>
> And you all make out COTSE's $6 a month as "super low", It's, measly $18
> saving on Anonymizers service.
>
> Then again, the two services are for different types of users...IMO it's
> hard to beat Anonymizer if you're looking for ACTUAL privacy from everyone
> including Big Brother.

Plus they have a more professional looking web site than we do.

> BUt if you just want privacy to get away from freaks
> and the like I would say COTSE is better...
>

That's true, we aren't designed to give you anonymity from the US
government because we operate under their laws. However, I don't think
anonymizer can provide that either for much the same reasons. If you
need that kind of anonymity don't trust any single service, use the
remailers.

/steve
--
http://www.cotse.net
A very unique privacy service, no other service compares.
E-mail, Usenet, Anon Proxies, Web Hosting, and more.
No one gives you more control over your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html

In article <Xns93A7857457078collyut@203.59.27.131>, LL <> wrote:
>nemo (nemo outis) wrote in
>news:7bFKa.292418$. ca:
>
>> They won't protect you if you use the service to make death
>> threats to George Bush - but for protecting your privacy they
>> will do all that is possible under the law.
>
>Interesting paradox:
>
>"They won't protect you if you use the service to make death
>threats to George Bush - but for protecting your privacy they
>will do all that is possible under the law."
>
>If they can't protect my information from the people I need protection from
>the most, why would I care how SPAM free or whatever their email services
>are...
>
>
>Uner the law it would be quite easy to protect a customers info from the
>likes of the government. COTSE keep their access logs for a week after
>access, much too long for a privacy sevice.
>
>And you all make out COTSE's $6 a month as "super low", It's, measly $18
>saving on Anonymizers service.
>
>Then again, the two services are for different types of users...IMO it's
>hard to beat Anonymizer if you're looking for ACTUAL privacy from everyone
>including Big Brother. BUt if you just want privacy to get away from freaks
>and the like I would say COTSE is better...
>
>~Seb


First, cotse's fee. Despite your whinging, you have admitted
that cotse's fee is indeed lower.

Second, cotse's services are better and more complete.

Third, cotse's rep ("the currency of the realm" for
security services based on trust) is higher.

Fourth, cotse does not require you to use any special software,
together with a large number of intellectual property enforcement
provisions (incuding identity disclosure for alleged breaches of
the licence agreement).

Fifth, and most important, cotse does not make unrealistic and
disingenous representations - as you do - that it can provide a
shield for illegal acts (let's hope you are not a spokesman for
anonymizer!) Cotse explains in clear and simple language the
types and levels of protection it is designed to give
(i.e., a privacy shield) and what it neither can nor is willing
to protect (illegal acts and grossly abusive ones such as
spamming).

In fact, to anonymizer's credit and your discredit, anonymizer's
User Agreement (section 7.3) explicitly prohibits illegal acts.
And item 4 of section 8.3 provides that the supplier (i.e.,
anonymizer) is not obliged to keep confidential any information
that it is required by law to divulge (and in a number of other
cases including spamming). Anonymizer states that it normally
keeps logs only for 48 hours, but then goes on to add the proviso
that it may keep them longer. (Anonymizer's User Agreement goes
on for over 7 densely-worded pages. Not disqualifying by itself
but rather worrisome in terms of simplicity and clarity.)

The powers of the US government, if they are focussed, and if
they want you bad enough, are enormous. Anyone who used
*any* commercial service - and one based in the US at that! - to
make, for example, death threats on the internet against GWB
would be a fool of the first order.

Anonymizer appears to provide a useful commercial privacy shield.
However, to pretend that it could - or would - protect you from
the consequences of your illegal acts and Big Brother is madness.

Regards,

"Stephen K. Gielda" <> wrote in message
news: ...

> > BUt if you just want privacy to get away from freaks
> > and the like I would say COTSE is better...
> >
>
> That's true, we aren't designed to give you anonymity from the US
> government because we operate under their laws. However, I don't think
> anonymizer can provide that either for much the same reasons. If you
> need that kind of anonymity don't trust any single service, use the
> remailers.
>
> /steve


You could always run a mix-based web proxy like JAP, ya know... ever
thought about it ? Best thing since freedom.net IMO.


DaveK
--
moderator of
alt.talk.rec.soc.biz.news.comp.humanities.meow.mis c.moderated.meow
Burn your ID card! http://www.optional-identity.org.uk/
Help support the campaign, copy this into your .sig!
Proud Member of the Exclusive "I have been plonked by Davee because he
thinks I'm interesting" List Member #<insert number here>
Master of Many Meowing Minions
Holder of the exhalted PF Chang's Crab Wonton Award for kook spankage above
and beyond the call of hilarity.
PGP Key-ID: 0x0FB504D1 Fingerprint 04B7 2E8C 0245 680E 6484 C441 CEC7 D2BD

"LLFormat" <dev-> wrote in message
news domain...

> Would encrypting emails attract 'unwanted' attention in the first place ?
> As (hopefully) the encryption could not be broken, would the composer of
> the mail in question face two or more years in the slammer for *not*
> handing over the passphrase ?

Yes, encrypted emails would attract attention. But, if you regularly
receive encrypted email to the point that encrypted mail is normal for you,
who would be able to determine which messages should be flagged for extra
analysis?

Keep in mind, too, that the laws governing Carnivore (well, at least
pre-9/911) were such that Carnivore could only monitor email for specific
individuals for which a warrant had been obtained. It's not like they hook
it up to a server and monitor all email accounts. But, after 9/11, this
may very well be the case.

I don't think there is a crime against handing over your passphrase. A 5th
Amendment (United States) right against self-incrimination may be
sufficient. If the court orders one to hand over the passphrase and that
person refuses, they most likely would be held in contempt and could be
incarcerated for some time. However, if the PGP key expires during that
time or if the information is no longer relevant after a certain period of
time...

Has anyone tried overcoming key expiration by using a backup of the key on
a machine with its clock set to an earlier time?


> 1) Most people I communicate with using email, would most likely think that
> PGP is a new brand of tea.

Yes, we all have that problem. If more people used PGP for the majority of
their email communication, it would improve security and make traffic
analysis extremely difficult.

> 2) Or those with slightly longer experience with computers would say;
> "Why would you want to encrypt emails ? What are you hiding ?"

That's a common argument but it reflects a very simple-minded view of the
world. It's also not a logical argument, but who cares, right? What
people don't realize is that they would never send half the email they send
out through the regular mail on postcards. Encryption is the equivalent of
a very good envelope.

Everyone has something to hide. Not every secret is criminal; privacy is a
form of secrecy. My bank and credit card information is private. So are
my feelings toward some of my neighbors. I'm definitely not going to
slander my boss in company email without encryption.