Re: Security & Encryption FAQ - Revision 18
From: An (An_at_Privacy.net)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:03:55 -0500
"know-doubt about it" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> That Other Guy <email@example.com> wrote in
>> Take a look at this page from the Cotse website concerning US
>> cooperation with China's crackdown on internet disidents.
>> This sort of cooperation usually works both ways. Since Hong Kong is
>> under Chinese sovereignty it would seem that the Privacy.li Hong Kong
>> server is not such a safe bet after all for those in the US. If I
>> were thinking about using the Liechtenstein server I would take a
>> close look at that country to see if there are similar issues.
> Thanks for the info TOG. There are a number of things in the Security Faq.
> Reading about privacy issues in the UK from the Faq, I wonder about using
> PuTTY software from the U.K. Doing research on anonymizer.com I found
> things that may make that provider unsuitable to some for privacy.
Yes, anonymizer.com is a frightening alternative.
www.Cotse.net is much more "up front" about their policies, logs, etc. I've
had good luck with Cotse.
www.Anonx.com (a new one) in Vanuatu is very interesting; it uses a vpn that
forwards every port you may use (i.e. IRC, media streaming, everything goes through
their server, so that your RDNS goes nowhere). I've been testing them and they are
start up is pretty well known