Re: COTSE?

• Previous message: Stephen K. Gielda: "Re: COTSE?"
• In reply to: LL: "Re: COTSE?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:29:51 GMT

In article <Xns93A7857457078collyut@203.59.27.131>, LL <LLK@hushmail.com> wrote:
>nemo outis@erewhon.com (nemo outis) wrote in
>news:7bFKa.292418$3C2.8223906@news3.calgary.shaw.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,

• Previous message: Stephen K. Gielda: "Re: COTSE?"
• In reply to: LL: "Re: COTSE?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]