«

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Winged wrote:
>
>>The concept of "off shore" is a total sham. Treaties and agreements
>>between countries can make obtaining evidence from another jurisdiction
>>easier than obtaining that same information locally.
>>
>>My exp has found traveling across various jurisdictions "can" be very
>>problematic. Especially for countries in br, ph, ru and ch. While I can
>
>
> Your "experience" sucks. Look the subject of MLATS up in recent AP/APAS
> debates to find links and cites from the legislations that make gathering
> evidence across borders a matter of an attorney filing the right form. And
> a link TO that form. And cites showing how they must comply if possible.
> And cites showing that it's FAR more possible in many jurisdictions than
> it is in the US.
>
> The US is actually one of the most protective countries when it comes to
> your privacy. Some places are absolutely horrible, and SOME places make
> logging your activity MANDATORY. But bashing the US is a popular thing
> these days, so the snake oil peddlers jump all over it.
>
>
>>not argue in general, the statement is true, there are a number of
>>jurisdictional boundaries that make tracking very difficult. If one were
>>striving for anonymity one would not use the same cascade in the same
>>order twice which further adds complexity.
>>
>>Additionally when one does a cascade over multiple routers across multiple
>>boundaries, it does make the anonymous issue more complex.
>
>
> That might be true, but then these scam artists are claiming that if you
> use their SAME servers over and over they're "completely anonymous"
> because the server is in Hong Kong and you're not. Neither are they, by
> the way. Which is good for them but REAL bad for you.
>
>
>>Might want to be careful about cascading through Saudi Arabia, they might
>>be allowed to extradite you and penalty is death by beheading...strange
>>for a country with no copyright restrictions.
>
>
> You might wan to be careful about cascading through Hong Kong, where any
> official can confiscate or monitor your communications on a whim, with no
> warrant at all. And were most activity is logged because it HAS to be.
>
> You might want to be careful about cascading through any EU member nation,
> where some activity MUST be logged by law. Where it's getting even worse
> almost every day.
>
> You MIGHT want to be careful about choosing any country to trust your
> anonymity and privacy to before you have a single CLUE exactly what the
> laws are in that country.
>

I am aware getting records in some countries is very easy, I am also
aware in other countries it is very difficult. The key is to cascade
through countries that will make it difficult to be followed.

In reality it makes no difference if you are under suspicion say of
terrorist activity, child porn or other activities if they suspect your
point of origin, you have issues.

SATCOM links are difficult to track to a specific location. This
requires identifying legitimate mac addresses in use with the provider
(not especially difficult and be capable of spoofing the specific mac
addy while the other mac host is inactive (obviously your SATCOM mac
link is traceable to your account).

Using random open wireless APs with a mac modifiable wireless adapter is
a reasonably anonymous method of access.

While you are correct that many countries have the capability of
tracking, many countries do not cooperate well with other countries law
enforcement agency requests. For example AR would probably not
cooperate well with US requests nor would Cuba etc. Cascades are funny
things as you may have one IP entering a router and quite another on
exit. Very few routers are logged... Depends where you can manage
changing buses.

There are several ways to be very difficult to track. In spite of your
unified world paranoia, in fact numerous countries do not cooperate well
with others. It takes time getting through the red tape and again when
a cascade is properly done, determining the backtrack of the force route
which no longer exists, especially across multiple cascades is difficult
if not impossible. This is even more true when crossing borders. It is
quite possible of routing through the EU and never be logged.

Another simple way to obscure your tracks is with IRC zombies.

Freenet type communications add a totally different levels of complexity
to the equation.

There are many ways to obscure communications though very few are legal
in most jurisdictions. There are few legitimate reasons (none I can
think of) where a cascade is used for a legitimate purpose. Unless you
own the route point you have broken a law in most countries I am aware of.

There are not many legitimate reasons to own NIC cards where the MAC
address can be modified, though I am not aware of any laws preventing
this mod in US. I know in the US modifying your SATCOM system has legal
ramifications if detected.

There is one other way to be computer anonymous...Don't get on the net.


I do agree that most anonymizing services would not be adequate to be
immune to tracking by law enforcement agencies however it can be
adequate to prevent many netizens backtracking communications. But
understand that these services are not the only way to be reasonably
anonymous.

Winged

Winged wrote:

> I am aware getting records in some countries is very easy, I am also aware
> in other countries it is very difficult. The key is to cascade through

<snip irrelevant BS>

What exactly does any of your long winded spew have to do with single
services, or using single servers in specific countries?

Absolutely nothing, that's what.

icono" <> > >> In what are you not anonymous?
> >>
> >> Doesn't the visited sight see Ghostsurf's IP Address, rather than
yours?
> >
> > That is correct but that does not make you anonymous.
> >
> > Depends on your definition of anonymous I guess but one commercial proxy
> > is
> > far from anonymous IMO.
>
> It isn't perfect, but it makes easy access to you, a purposeful endeavor,
> which is then lights out.

^^ Lost me dude .... it's pretty much pointless paying for one proxy.
I just don't see the point as local security measures can be easily
accomplished why the need for a single commercial proxy?

"icono" <> wrote
> >> Actually the only thing I was looking for was a package where cookies
are
> >> not accepted unless the web addy is included as "O.K." and then
remembers
> >> such when answered. It is more of a convenience to keep garbage out
> > rather
> >> than hard protection. I could also review sites that I have "O.K.ed".
> >
> > Then I'm sure firefox would be more than adequate.
>
> I've used them on and off.
> Great package.
> On a couple sites that are not snoopers, I had trouble getting into the
> second level.
> It is definitely safer than IE

Ihope to fcuk you're just a troll or maybe your post just confused me a
litttle

"Useless" <> wrote in message
news:43991bfd$0$35124$ reenews.net...
> icono" <> > >> In what are you not anonymous?
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't the visited sight see Ghostsurf's IP Address, rather than
> yours?
>> >
>> > That is correct but that does not make you anonymous.
>> >
>> > Depends on your definition of anonymous I guess but one commercial
>> > proxy
>> > is
>> > far from anonymous IMO.
>>
>> It isn't perfect, but it makes easy access to you, a purposeful endeavor,
>> which is then lights out.
>
> ^^ Lost me dude .... it's pretty much pointless paying for one proxy.
> I just don't see the point as local security measures can be easily
> accomplished why the need for a single commercial proxy?
>
>

The point is that it is a deterrent.

At the front door one can have.
1. a handle
2. A lock
3. A security lock
4. A security storm / screen door
5. A motion sensor
6. a motion light.

Or one can just leave the door wide open.

I leave my garage door open quite often.
A neighbor did so "once" and had a huge tool chest stolen.
My door was open and I have a larger set of tools.
The difference (maybe). When someone enters my garage a light flashes.

A deterrent is simply that. It doesn't prevent.

One can have their computer completely disconnected from the net and powered
down and someone can physically steal the computer.

"Useless" <> wrote in message
news:4399230e$0$86324$ reenews.net...
> "icono" <> wrote
> > >> Actually the only thing I was looking for was a package where cookies
> are
>> >> not accepted unless the web addy is included as "O.K." and then
> remembers
>> >> such when answered. It is more of a convenience to keep garbage out
>> > rather
>> >> than hard protection. I could also review sites that I have "O.K.ed".
>> >
>> > Then I'm sure firefox would be more than adequate.
>>
>> I've used them on and off.
>> Great package.
>> On a couple sites that are not snoopers, I had trouble getting into the
>> second level.
>> It is definitely safer than IE
>
> Ihope to fcuk you're just a troll or maybe your post just confused me a
> litttle
>
>

Have you ever used FireFox?
If you had, you would know what I mean. If you haven't, macht nichts.

"thunderbird" <> wrote in message

AND???
What's wrong with at least including the header as above.

Netiquette.

"icono" <> wrote
> >
> > Ihope to fcuk you're just a troll or maybe your post just confused me a
> > litttle
>
> Have you ever used FireFox?
> If you had, you would know what I mean. If you haven't, macht nichts.

I currently use Firefox?

Anyway excuse my other comment <note to self do not reply to messages when
****ed up>

"Useless" <> wrote in message
news:439a71c1$0$89339$ reenews.net...
> "icono" <> wrote
>> >
>> > Ihope to fcuk you're just a troll or maybe your post just confused me a
>> > litttle
>>
>> Have you ever used FireFox?
>> If you had, you would know what I mean. If you haven't, macht nichts.
>
> I currently use Firefox?
>
> Anyway excuse my other comment <note to self do not reply to messages when
> ****ed up>
>
>

I tried to keep the sentences short.
My vocabulary is strong enough to use plain English.

Shall we take it that your question mark after your statement means that you
are not quite certain that you use FireFox?

In any case, do you use Thunderbird?

"Useless" <> wrote in message
news:439a71c1$0$89339$ reenews.net...
> "icono" <> wrote
>> >
>> > Ihope to fcuk you're just a troll or maybe your post just confused me a
>> > litttle
>>
>> Have you ever used FireFox?
>> If you had, you would know what I mean. If you haven't, macht nichts.
>
> I currently use Firefox?
>
> Anyway excuse my other comment <note to self do not reply to messages when
> ****ed up>
>
>

I've used them on and off.

I've used Firefox / Mozilla on and off.

Great package.

The package is Firefox / Mozilla / Thunderbird

On a couple sites that are not snoopers, I had trouble getting into the
second level.

It (Firefox / Mozilla) has problems with some sites that have a narrow IE
application (poor design) , so when one clicks on a link, it doesn't always
work.

It is definitely safer than IE.

Spammers, spies etc. target IE and its known (to them) holes. Firefox may
have as many holes but there aren't thousands trying to find them.