THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:
PATRICK PARIS -- MORALLY BANKRUPT
PATRICK PARIS -- CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER
PATRICK PARIS -- SHITBAG
PATRICK PARIS -- PUNK
newsgroup after newsgroup
and attacks that person
uses the AOL IM ID
MARKGETTER and he e
ven goes so far to STALK
<<==========>>
Subject: Re: Serious question, related to this "Pangborn" stuff
AD wrote:
" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
DAVEY MOORE - AGAIN
"AD" <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote in message
news:VIZIJ8T738641.2290740741@reece.net.au...
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
^ krp ! wrote:
Sounds like RATIONALIZATION............... *I* have NEVER NEVER
NEVER
NEVER NEVER NEVER used a remailer. GOT IT MORON? NEVER!
I do NOT have the anonymizing software on my computers. PERIOD!
Message-ID: <TNK938ME38419.5208101852@reece.net.au>
Message-ID: <tjhXd.77945$Dc.44771@trnddc06>
The same message posted first through a remailer, then through your own
account.
In regard to the message IDs mentioned above, which are also
mentioned on
the page www.aboutkenpangborn.com/altatheism.html. To me this seems to
indicate that Kenny is guilty of the very offenses which he accuses
others
of: forging and harassing through the remailers. The message posted
through the remailer looks like it was a forgery of someone else in
another
group, and the fact that Kenny a short while later sent the exact same
text
from his known address makes it indeed seem that he was the forger.
Could
I be interpreting this wrong?
If he indeed is the sender, then it would seem he is delibarately
abusing
remailers so that he can have more ammunition in his arguments here in
APAS. I am curious to know how others may interpret these facts.
OF COURSE YOU DO DAVEY!
My name isn't Davey. I know you're paranoid, kook, but perhaps you
can get
the idea that everyone isn't "Moore".
And as usual, I note that you have no comments on the actual facts
which prove you again and again to be full of shit.
He never does. Back peddling and lying is what Kenny does. It is what
he is best known for.
<<==========>>
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
