Slashdot Mirror


Safeweb Turns Off Free Service

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Seems like Safeweb was the last one to cancel providing free anonymizing service. Rest in peace, Safeweb, I loved you a lot. With Anonymouse down and Anonymizer.com restricted, are there any free services left for those suffering from corporate oppression?"

316 comments

  1. Sweet Irony by yatest5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I totally dig the fact that the submitter of this story was 'anonymous coward'...!

    --
    • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    1. Re:Sweet Irony by sllort · · Score: 4, Informative

      I totally dig the fact that the submitter of this story was 'anonymous coward'...!

      I dig it too, because that's the real irony. Anonymous Cowards here aren't, because their IP addresses are still subject to subpoena, and there's a 2 week long window where Slashdot stores the IP address as an MD5 hash, which can be easily defeated. Think Church of Scientology.

      The only way to make AC posts truly "anonymous" is to post through an anonymous HTTP proxy that instantly "forgets" the source IP address. This is what Safeweb provided, and now it's gone. The irony is that the Anonymous Coward who posted the story probably isn't Anonymous.

      Of course, there are still other anonymizers, but Safeweb was the best known.

    2. Re:Sweet Irony by Mwongozi · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is what Safeweb provided,

      Actually, it didn't. SafeWeb kept logs for seven days.

    3. Re:Sweet Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the "An Anonymous Coward" link. It shows his email address.

    4. Re:Sweet Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this guy's so oppressed, he should start his own company and run it as he sees fit. That's what I did.

      Stop whining about being oppressed and do something about it!

    5. Re:Sweet Irony by yatest5 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm not sure 'not being allowed to look at donkey porn from work' counts as 'oppressed' ;-).

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    6. Re:Sweet Irony by KupekKupoppo · · Score: 1

      Too bad he's not 'Anonymous Coward'. Looks to me like his account is named "An Anonymous Coward."

      Oops, your bad.

    7. Re:Sweet Irony by kirn_malinus · · Score: 1

      That and the "anonymous coward" who posted this is actually user account with the name "An Anonymous Coward".

      --
      All circuits busy.
    8. Re:Sweet Irony by sllort · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    9. Re:Sweet Irony by DeadMeat+(TM) · · Score: 2
      The irony is that the Anonymous Coward who posted the story probably isn't Anonymous.
      Given that his E-mail address is posted, it's a safe bet he's not anonymous.
  2. noproxy by DMDx86 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Noproxy still works. There is also a list of free services at antiproxy. I personlly run my own CGI Proxy on my home server while I am at school.

    1. Re:noproxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking in to doing the same thing with setting up a proxy from home to use at school..

      alas... i do not know too much cgi, and found myself rather stuck..

      If there are any faq's or resourses you can direct me to it would be greatly appreciated

    2. Re:noproxy by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I personlly run my own CGI Proxy on my home server while I am at school.

      I don't get it. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? All your surfing can be tracked back to you.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:noproxy by Doomdark · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Just a guess; he's more worried about the school finding out his browsing habits (or blocking access to sites), than about web sites profiling him?

      To work adequately the connection has to be encrypted (ssl should be ok here I guess), or the target-URL has to be encrypted. Otherwise it's trivial to still track usage, although, this has to be done manually (unless cgi-arg passing uses some existing de facto standard?).

      You are right though, this won't work for the other big problem, snooping at the other end... And that's why safeweb (or similar) was really neat thing to have (even with those 7 days logs someone mentioned... as long as you realize it 's not all THAT anonymous).

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    4. Re:noproxy by DMDx86 · · Score: 1

      I was looking in to doing the same thing with setting up a proxy from home to use at school..

      alas... i do not know too much cgi, and found myself rather stuck..

      If there are any faq's or resourses you can direct me to it would be greatly appreciated


      I do not know of any FAQ's/guides, but e-mail me at above address, and I will be more than happy to assist you.

    5. Re:noproxy by Kailden · · Score: 2

      how about The Cloak Does it count??

      --
      I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
    6. Re:noproxy by damiam · · Score: 2

      One of the major uses for proxy services is bypassing annoying blocking software such as that installed at many schools. That's probably what DMDx86 means.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    7. Re:noproxy by H310iSe · · Score: 1
      All your surfing are belong to us.

      I just couldn't resist. OK, seriously, if you run an anon. proxy from your home PC and it's available to anyone on the internet (say, who knows the password just to keep your bandwidth under control) then if someone accesses XFILES.mil from your computer they can't say it was you who did it. Not sure if you're still in trouble for providing the proxy but at least you couldn't be in trouble for doing the deed.

      This is *not* a legal opinion, just an amateur guesswork.

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    8. Re:noproxy by DrummingDork86 · · Score: 1

      Thank you my....friend (I think). Since my school has the most moronic rules concering internet and e-mail use in the world (can't even send a 1337- laden flame to a non-techie...thing (couldn't determine its sex)) I hope this works at school, lest some loser read this before me and narced about it to the library people so they could block it. (Wow, I ramble plenty...)

      --
      Behold! The nerdiest sultan of snares, president of paraddidles, and master of MIDI drum sets the world has never seen!
    9. Re:noproxy by Mike+McCune · · Score: 1

      I do something similar except I use OpenSSH (www.openssh.org) to open a session on my home PC then fire up my favorite browser (www.mozilla.org or lynx.browser.org). It even works through a proxy if you tunnel the connection through port 21 (FTP) or port 80 (http).

      If you are worried about snooping on the other end, just clear the cookies and cache at the end of the session. Of course it can be traced, but as long as you are not doing anything illegal, it would be too much of a bother.

      --

      In a world that is Free and Open, who needs Windows and Gates?

  3. Anonymizer.com by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Although it sucks.

  4. Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Brento · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like Safeweb was the last one to cancel providing free anonymizing service. Rest in peace, Safeweb, I loved you a lot.

    Hmm, you loved it a lot, but you're not willing to pay, eh? Sounds like the tombstone of every other dot-com. What's the surprise here? When people realize that you have to pay to play, maybe the dot-com economy will change. News flash, folks, if there's something good, and you love it, you need to chip in and contribute. If you don't, as they say on public radio, nobody else will.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Hanul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      pay and be anonymous at the same time? just tell me how.

      yeah, pay cash and wear a mask.

    2. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Brento · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      pay and be anonymous at the same time? just tell me how.

      Donations, man, just like church. (You DO go to church, don't you?) I don't give my name at church, but they get money from me every week. (Well, every couple of weeks.) Support the system, and it supports you. You don't have to be anonymous to support it - you can give your name when you support it, but it's not directly related to the services you consume. Now subscriptions, on the other hand, that's not anonymous, but donations are.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    3. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Asphalt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      SafeWeb did not solicit donations, or provide a pay-for-play service for individuals.

      It was not any of the user's fault.

      What are we supposed to do, put cash in an envelope, write "SafeWeb" on the front, and drop it in a mailbox?

      If SafeWeb was cash-strapped, they could have notified users as such, and provided ways to contrinute and/or subscribe.

      They didn't. Who are you going to blame?

    4. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by gazbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It depends why you want to be anonymous. If it is because you are terrified that 'they' know you are alive, then tough - 'they' know that anyway.

      If it is to stop 'them' tracking your web browsing, then what's the problem?
      1: They store your User/pass along with credit card details
      2: You sign in, they mask your IP through their proxy.
      3: (not really a step but...)They keep no record linking your user/ip to the sites you browse.

      The only problem is if you don't trust the company to not store the info. If this is the case, then the anonymising service would be useless even if free.

      Oh, and if you're not happy about giving them your CC number, send a cheque.

    5. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      "if there's something good, and you love it, you need to chip in and contribute"

      What, like Linux?

    6. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • If you don't, as they say on public radio, nobody else will.

      But even if you do chip in, other people might not (they tend not to online), and you can kiss your one annual subscription/donation goodbye. It's this last point that really puts me off paying up front for online services (many of them do ask for annual or multi-month commitments), even though I do agree with your point that if you use and don't pay, you're complicit in kiling them.

      I'd be more inclined to pay monthly in arrears for services that I've already used. Sure, that's not such a good deal for the service, but it might be the best way for them to survive.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When people realize that you have to pay to play, maybe the dot-com economy will change.


      Actually it's the other way around: only when dot-coms realize people aren't willing to pay even for services they find somewhat useful, and find an indirect means of making money, or invent some killer service people would really pay for, the dot-com economy will change.


      Remember: it's not up to you to pay for whatever you're offered: it's up to them to offer you something you're willing to pay for.

    8. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Doomdark · · Score: 2, Informative
      Umh, I may have missed something, but what else could I (we) have done to contribute than use it? The business model apparently was to sell advertising space... and I don't have anything to advertise, so best I could do was to use it, and be viewed as a potential marketing target (ie. more users, more they can charge advertisers, just like magazines and newspapers).
      Or was there some premium pay-to-use service available?

      Note too that I was to pay for Freedom (by Zero Knowledge), but since they halted development of linux-version (they did have beta-version for older kernels... but I had upgraded to 2.4.x series) I couldn't. And now it would be a moot point since they threw in the towel.

      Finally, like someone else said; the problem with paying is the damage to anonymity. It is kind of hard to take payments without getting the ability to track down the user. ZK did go to lengths to work around the problems, but it's not a trivial problem.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    9. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by GTRacer · · Score: 2
      Ummm, re: public radio...

      I thought that was supposed to be supported with tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected and spent even if I don't use public radio/TV.

      Yes, I understand the position these stations find themselves in with money always being cut or diverted. And no, I'm not completely heartless. Although I probably won't ever contribute to my local stations because nowadays they have too many thinly-disguised commercials!

      GTRacer
      - Needs to be AC every now and again...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    10. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Brento · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummm, re: public radio... I thought that was supposed to be supported with tax dollars. Tax dollars that are collected and spent even if I don't use public radio/TV.

      Nope, public radio is no longer allowed to accept government funding. Hasn't been for years. It's 100% listener-supported. For example, KUHF here in Houston is allowed to broadcast from the university campus, but that's about the only freebie they get. The government-funded thing is a common misconception.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    11. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by GTRacer · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Are you sure? From CPB's own website:

      Less than half of the industry's total income comes from tax-based sources such as federal, state, and local governments. Sixty-one percent of the income is from private sources such as businesses and memberships.

      ...and...

      How much does the federal government contribute?
      In 1999 Congress appropriated $250 million to CPB, approximately 11.6 percent of the industry's total income.

      ...or this...

      By law, 95 percent of the funds allocated to CPB go directly to benefit viewers and listeners either through Community Service Grants to stations, programming grants to producers, or other station-related activities.

      Are you telling me that NONE of this money makes it to any public radio stations? Where I live, the public TV and radio station share the same facilities.

      But I could be wrong. I have been wrong before...

      GTRacer
      - Still missing Dan Hickman and "Metro".

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    12. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Brento · · Score: 2, Informative

      This graph might help clear it up - it's a chart from NPR showing their funding sources.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    13. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Reductionist · · Score: 1

      Not true.. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the governement agency created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, supplies about 12% of the funding for public radio with an additional 3% coming in the form of Federal grants. An additional 18% of the funding comes from State and local governments. Altogether direct public funding makes up around 33% of the budget for public radio.

      http://www.arts.cornell.edu/econ/graphic/seminar s/ brooks%20radio.pdf

    14. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by GTRacer · · Score: 2
      The only direct government funding...

      Does this take into account state and local government funding?

      And how does that graph match your claim that "...public radio is no longer allowed to accept government funding. Hasn't been for years. It's 100% listener-supported."

      2 percent isn't zero. Not trying to be anal, but I'd bet doughnuts to dollars, some fraction of my local, state and fed tax dollars are propping up public radio and TV here.

      GTRacer
      - And at the $90 level, we have this tote bag...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    15. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this take into account state and local government funding?

      Most state funding of public radio are rural subsidies. It is expensive to broadcast to all corners of Nebrasaka, for example.

      I would consider this more part of the farm program than anything else. If public radio was confined to the 20 largest metropolitan areas, it would easily be self-sufficient.

    16. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.... just like all the other crap the Gov't spends money that I don't have access to? I am so sick of people complaining about all those tax dollars 'abused' by NPR/PBS. Give me a f-ing break.

      Gov't funding of public broadcasting is a pittance, especially compared to military, supporting 3rd-world dictatorships or even B.S. corporate welfare.

      Plus, there's very little actual 'direct' gov't funding -- it gets distributed by the CPB.

    17. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by GTRacer · · Score: 2
      You misunderstand my intent, AC.

      Brento used the oft-stated "If you don't, who will?" in regards to services people want but are too apathetic to pay for.

      My reply is more about the fact that I already pay for public broadcasting, albeit in a very indirect and marginal way, through taxation. I have no problem with tax funds going for this purpose.

      GTRacer
      - Our military rocks harder on a larger scale than anyone else's!

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    18. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by Western+Light · · Score: 1

      When people realize that you have to pay to play, maybe the dot-com economy will change.

      Reminds me of all the nice restaurants I would like to go -- if only I had the money. Not just dotcoms, but all businesses that attract some sort of paying customers or clients fail (unless they have deep pockets).

    19. Re:Gee, big surprise there, another free site down by seagis · · Score: 1



      Yes, like Linux.

      Contribution doesn't need to entail money. That's why Linux has been able to do as well as it has - because people are able to contribute to its growth by submitting code improvements and such...

  5. CIA Investors by rsimmons · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't it funny that one of Safeweb's main investors is a company controlled by the CIA called In-Q-Tel. Here is Safeweb's investors page.

    1. Re:CIA Investors by rsimmons · · Score: 1

      Since In-Q-Tel's website seems to be having problems at the moment, here is the Google cache of their about page.

    2. Re:CIA Investors by vscjoe · · Score: 1

      The CIA wants to provide anonymization so that people in other countries with oppressive regimes can get unhindered and anonymous access to information. But "anonymous access to information" probably has a bad name in Washington right now, with all that fear and speculation surrounding terrorism.

    3. Re:CIA Investors by cetan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a more detailed analysis of the CIA/Safeweb bedding:

      http://cryptome.org/riaa-anongo.htm

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
    4. Re:CIA Investors by Red+Rocket · · Score: 2

      It's more likely that the CIA is investing in SafeWeb so that they will have access to the surfing logs of users who want to do things anonymously. While SafeWeb permits you to surf without your employer or ISP logging your tracks, it also becomes the hub through which all your "anonymous" activity must pass. It would be no problem for SafeWeb to log your activity and pass it on to friendly investors. By tracking only users who are interested in anonymizing their activity, SafeWeb and others act as distilleries to purify their logs down to only "suspicious" activity. Exactly the kind of logs spook organizations would be interested in.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    5. Re:CIA Investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod parent up as insightful.

    6. Re:CIA Investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if they are trying to log "your" or any particular person's activity -- they probably have more reliable ways of getting that information.

      I suspect that they were more interested in getting traffic analysis of what people were trying to hide -

      1% Slashdot crapflooding
      1% al-Qaida money transfers
      1% mafia money transfers
      97% porn

      If any of those one percents happens to double, there's trouble abrewing somewhere.

    7. Re:CIA Investors by John+Carmack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a very interesting tale about this.

      One of the suppliers to Armadillo Aerospace told me about an experiment that he tried. He was looking over the logs to his (very low traffic) site, and he wondered how an anonymized hit would show up in the logs. He went through Safeweb, and saw a properly obscured address in the logs.

      One hour later, he also got a hit to the same page from cia.gov.

      I'm sure this isn't standard practice for every access, but his site was probably on a hot list of some sort due to the aerospace content.

      John Carmack

    8. Re:CIA Investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more likely that the CIA is investing in SafeWeb so that they will have access to the surfing logs of users who want to do things anonymously. While SafeWeb permits you to surf without your employer or ISP logging your tracks, it also becomes the hub through which all your "anonymous" activity must pass. It would be no problem for SafeWeb to log your activity and pass it on to friendly investors. By tracking only users who are interested in anonymizing their activity, SafeWeb and others act as distilleries to purify their logs down to only "suspicious" activity. Exactly the kind of logs spook organizations would be interested in.

      But what if they read your mind using rays from their orbiting satellites?? Better keep that tinfoil hat on at all times!

    9. Re:CIA Investors by Western+Light · · Score: 1

      Excellent! This is like those "winning" lottery tickets mailed out to the wanted criminals. They all show up to collect their prize and guess who's waiting.

    10. Re:CIA Investors by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess you're right. The CIA is a wonderfully altruistic organization with only our best interests in mind. They would never stoop to anything as low as monitoring the activity of internet users. What was I thinking?
      Believe everything you're told, Zippy! One day you might be able to write statements like, "I bought a new car becuase the President told me it would help fight terrorism." or "These containment cells are for our protection."

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  6. The solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just wear tinfoil on your head... it totally eliminates the corporate oppression! It really works! I used to be oppressed on a daily basis. But ever since I started where the tin foil hat, people avoid me like the plague! I've even seen people cross the street to avoid walking by me!

    Finally! The power is mine!

    1. Re:The solution by ethereal · · Score: 0

      "Help, help - I'm being oppressed!"

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:The solution by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      Even easier, (for those without easy access to tinfoil) is to not shower for a few days... that always works for me... :P

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    3. Re:The solution by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      Just wear tinfoil on your head... it totally eliminates the corporate oppression! It really works! I used to be oppressed on a daily basis. But ever since I started where the tin foil hat, people avoid me like the plague! I've even seen people cross the street to avoid walking by me!

      People aren't avoiding you 'cause of the tinfoil hat. It's the swoosh brand on your forehead that freaks 'em. They haven't been sufficiently assimilated to want one of their own. Yet.

    4. Re:The solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [insert random evil comment here]

    5. Re:The solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, and here I just posted a tinfoil hat comment in response to something a few posts up... uh oh... if we both had the same thought.... maybe the CIA is implanting thoughts in our heads! We may need something stronger than tinfoil!

  7. SilentSurf are by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... avaliable from here and here.

    --
    James F.
    1. Re:SilentSurf are by redcup · · Score: 1

      but they allow the ad companies to track you in real time... from their privacy policy:

      "...SilentSurf.com features its own banner ads at the very top and bottom of every page. You should be aware that SilentSurf.com does not serve or control those banners, which are served by independent Internet advertising firms. Those firms may send cookies to your browser, track your IP address, or attempt to capture or control other information about your browser or web surfing session. "

      I suppose you could use a proxy like AdSubtract to get rid of those...

      --

      RC
  8. Aren't they mostly small services? by Ratface · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AFAIK the majority of anonymiser services have gone underground to the extent that they tend not to want to advertise their services, working instead by word of mouth. Personally I wouldn't even want to be a user of an anonymising service where the operator/s weren't in some way known to be to be trustworthy.

    There's possibly more safety in diversity when it comes to anonymising services. (Though that is debatable)

    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
  9. Hiding in crowds by iamcadaver · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is still work being done with AT&T's crowds. Basically, the caveat is that you have'ta share the load if you wanna use the service. Good karma there.

    --
    Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
    1. Re:Hiding in crowds by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the download 'feature' is disabled...

    2. Re:Hiding in crowds by vscjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is a very simple mechanism by which lawyers will likely put an end to that: if you are part of a software "crowd" and someone in that crowd does something, you will be held at least in part responsible; the necessary connectivity information can probably be obtained from ISP logs and electronic wiretaps even if the source of any particular request cannot.

      In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the legal system or Ashcroft wouldn't try to claim that you should be suspected of terrorist activities simply because you are using software like AT&T's crowds software. Since that kind of software doesn't ship with every PC and requires at least a bit of skill and effort to install, you will be part of a small minority if you do.

    3. Re:Hiding in crowds by aozilla · · Score: 2

      There is a very simple mechanism by which lawyers will likely put an end to that: if you are part of a software "crowd" and someone in that crowd does something, you will be held at least in part responsible.

      Only if you have reason to believe that something illegal is being done, and you do nothing about it.

      On the other hand, you're participating in a barter system, and therefore have to obtain the identies of the others in the "crowd", so you can send them 1099-Bs to report their barter income.

      --
      ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
    4. Re:Hiding in crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attempting to download the software results in "Command no longer supported"

    5. Re:Hiding in crowds by schlach · · Score: 1

      haha...

      from http://www.research.att.com/projects/crowds...

      THE CROWDS CODE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD

      If you would like a copy of the code, please send mail to crowds@research.att.com
      with a copy of the following license and indicate that you agree to the license.
      Request may take a little while to process.
      The Crowds software is available for free, non-commercial use in the United States. To obtain the software, please provide the following information...

      So it goes. Anyone have a copy of the code? It's a proxy, written in perl. Intriguing enough to want to take a look at.

    6. Re:Hiding in crowds by stantron77 · · Score: 1

      I don't have it anymore, but I would suggest that you just send that e-mail. That's what I did after they disabled the download and they sent me the code the next day.

      --
      "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Pla
    7. Re:Hiding in crowds by bshroyer · · Score: 1

      How anonymous can Crowds be? At the end of the Crowds page you read "Users who keep their Crowds servers alive all the time will be identified and rewarded with a free Crowds t-shirt "

      Seven Crowds members have thus far been awarded a tshirt, and are listed by name!

      --
      The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
  10. So? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why not do it yourself? Its not all that hard to mask your IP, or pull a couple of the same tricks spammers use to spam people... anonymously at that...

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:So? by sydb · · Score: 2

      Tell us how, then, if your sitting behind a corporate proxy and firewall?

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    2. Re:So? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are sitting behind a corporate firewall, then why do you need the ability to post anonymously? Why aren't you doing your job (whatever it may be), and if you must say negative things about your employeer (which is the only reason I can think anyone would want to post anonymously while behind a corporate firewall), why not do it from home?

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know they're affordable, but not everyone can afford a personal computer and internet connection at home.

    4. Re:So? by diamondc · · Score: 1

      Easy.. just setup a cgi proxy on your computer at home or somewhere else listenin on port 80. you connect to that computer (the corporate firewall SHOULD allow at least port 80 outgoing) and then you get a text field asking which site you want to go to. the proxy program should be smart enough to filter out the http headers so the pages dont look suspicious

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you avoid jumping to conclusions?

      Here is a perfectly plausible scenario:
      1) You have a company sponsored broadband connection at home (ADSL)
      2) That b-b connection is tied into corporate intranet. (i.e. you are forced to connect to intranet, and reach internet via proxy)
      3) That b-b connection is for working at home during work hours, and recreation after hours.
      4) You are taxed on that connection, because it is a benefit being able to use it for personal use.

      So, doncha think it might be useful to be able to surf/post anonymously via the company's proxy? (When my 9-5 hours are over.)

    6. Re:So? by Malachi · · Score: 1
      I'm not going to get into it about being able to surf without a watcher.. being the guy who watches and all that ;) but I like knowing where I go is my business and not my superior's.. invasive privacy vs corporate policy.. bah.. each man for himself.


      The posting bit I don't get.. but surfing I can. Also I think of it this way.. You have smokers and non smokers.. I'm no longer a smoker but smoking and in my office takes up at least 20 some damn breaks a day.. now the non smokers don't really like the idea that 20*15mins equates into good breaks.. Well.. any time I surf where I want I consider it a portion of my 'smoke break'.. so theres a little perspective.

      Malachi

      --
      "Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
    7. Re:So? by sydb · · Score: 2

      That's not anonymous. You can be traced back to your companies firewall / proxy and then traced back to your machine via proxy logs.

      Trust me, I run corporate firewalls and proxies.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    8. Re:So? by sydb · · Score: 2

      And if your sitting at home, your traffic can be monitored by your ISP. Most people use anonymizers to bypass corporate proxies, because they don't want the corporate security people knowing what porn, sport and travel sites they've been surfing.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  11. JAP by seite-f00f · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de is still beta but
    working...

  12. If you're paying, it's not anonymous by tony_gardner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're sending your credit card details to an anonymising service. How long will you stay anonymous?

    1. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by ethereal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contrariwise, no anonymizing service is going to be able to retain legal services to fend off attacks on anonymity without having some form of income. So either some wealthy benefactor pays for "free" anonymity because they believe in it, or else everyone has to chip in to preserve their own privacy.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by swingkid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if you're not paying, it's not really anonymous; they have your ip adress at the least.

    3. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by Gkeeper80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have to be anonymous going in, only going out. They have your IP already, they might as well also have a username. As long as that info isn't sent through with the outgoing request you are still anonymous

    4. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by bluebomber · · Score: 2

      Even if you're not paying, it's not really anonymous; they have your ip adress at the least.

      This is very true. Look at the lengths you have to go to to keep your email anonymous through the various anonymizing protocols/services. The truly paranoid will use multiple servers so that there is no single point of failure -- and cracking the chain requires a significant amount of resources. As with anything in the privacy/security/encryption arena, anything can be cracked, it is just a matter of the amount of time and resources that can be devoted to cracking and the amount of convenience that you are willing to give up for this security.

      If you're just looking to bypass the corporate filtering-proxy, it won't take rocket science. If you're paranoid and don't want 'them' tracking you, well, that's another story... 'they' have infinite resources and time... ;)

    5. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by Doomdark · · Score: 2
      no anonymizing service is going to be able to retain legal services to fend off attacks on anonymity without having some form of income

      Au contraire. If they are charging you (or advertisers), they are making money out of something that authorities try to paint as 'illegal activity'. Like Napster and n+1 other companies. If they are not, they are not benefiting from 'breaking the law' (as it's now jokingly termed), and perhaps had better legal standing.

      Napster has/had enough money to hire the lawyers, and much good did that do to them. They got the image of a company helping thieves, and got the brutal beating.

      Money is useful, sure, but obtaining it from users is not without its problems. :-/

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    6. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by damiam · · Score: 1

      If I was going to pay money to an anonymizing site, the very least I would expect is that they not log IP addresses.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    7. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
      So you're sending your credit card details to an anonymising service. How long will you stay anonymous?

      Exactly why we need government backed (so it's accepted) digital cash (a.k.a. e-cash) (cash so it's anonymous).

      Any bets how soon that will happen, post 9-11?

      (Yes, I am aware of the downside.)

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    8. Re:If you're paying, it's not anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking like a bunch of thieves, but being able to afford lawyers, is much, much better than the alternative. Court provided lawyer == you're fucking toast.

  13. wait for freenet 0.5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the development of the freenet project is making progress, and is just ahead of a breakthrough release. some people already work on an anonymous messaging and email service.

    if they get the 0.5 release done well, it would allow many kinds of anonymous communications services which no one could ever close down!

  14. Sneakemail is still around by Vicegrip · · Score: 3, Informative

    I like to use sneakemail for hiding my true email address from the multitude of lists and webpages I sometimes use.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    1. Re:Sneakemail is still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to hide an email adress like jrpetit@hotmail.com?

  15. Alternatives? by jacoplane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps there are still some free alternatives. I haven't tried any of those listed though. Maybe someone can provide some feedback.

    The other possibility of course is to use something like Freenet. Although nobody is totally anonymous on freenet, at least everyone is almost anonymous, which I feel is much better than the current situation. Of course, big-brother types will disagree and claim it is far too dangerous.

  16. Your bogus question has an answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "are there any free services left for those suffering from corporate oppression?"

    Have you ever heard of a search engine?

    Case closed.

  17. no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    corporate oppresion? if you're doing stuff at work that you're not supposed to, you should probably be at least reprimanded (docked pay perhaps) and probably should be fired! If you want to surf anonymously (ie without your employer finding out where you are) do it from home. Why should you get paid to do things that are against company policy like look at pornography and play games when you're supposed to be working?

  18. Re:why must you cloak your actions? are you ashame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when Slashdot was a libertarian forum, not full of right-wing conservative nuts
    News flash: on the scale of politics, libertarians are very far on the "right wing". That's ok.. keep contradicting yourself.. no one cares what you say anyway.

  19. Get over it, or take constructive action by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
    OK, so a bunch of anonymous email servers have gone down, either because they can't pay the bills or they are afraid of lawsuits. Get over it.



    If you feel that strongly that the world needs anonymous, untraceable email, stop whining and do somthing about it. Set up a server, host it somewhere, and let people know where it is and how to use it. If you can figure out how to make it make enough money to cover expenses, more power to ya! Free services are great, if someone else is paying the bill. It's a different story when you're the one signing the checks. If you really believe this kind of service should be free for everyone, put your money where your mouth is and underwrite the venture, otherwise shut the F*** up.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Get over it, or take constructive action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I'm getting tired of these whiny brats.

    2. Re:Get over it, or take constructive action by merchant_x · · Score: 1

      This isn't even about anonymous email. It's about anonymous surfing. If you're going to start ranting at least get the topic right.

    3. Re:Get over it, or take constructive action by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      And the first step in fixing the problem is noticing that there is a problem and publishing this fact so that people can get on and deal with it. So why don't you stop whining about people who are doing exactly that.

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    4. Re:Get over it, or take constructive action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the second step would be determining what to do by making a plan. He's already one step ahead of you.

      Bitching is great unless that's all you do.

    5. Re:Get over it, or take constructive action by Captn+Pepe · · Score: 2
      If you feel that strongly that the world needs anonymous, untraceable email, stop whining and do somthing about it. Set up a server, host it somewhere, and let people know where it is and how to use it.

      The world has already got anonymous, untraceable email in the cypherpunk and mixmaster remailer networks. If you really want to help out, set up one of these servers and announce yourself on alt.privacy.anon-server. If you want to know more about these systems, the best web page these days is probably here.

      Of course, you should be aware that doing so will get you a lot of flames, a lot of network abuse, and such. Why? Because a lot of people don't know how to deal with real, hardcore anonymity. The people who run the remailers are dedicated privacy advocates who believe in the right to speak without fear, even if that enables some evils (spam, harassment, etc) and even if they have no control whatsoever over the data flowing through their servers.

      Think about that: would you be comfortable providing an encrypted, anonymous service so powerful that neither you nor the FBI/NSA/etc would ever know about the kiddie porn and terrorist plots that could be flowing through your computer if, in return, you helped dissidents and human rights workers communicate without fear of reprisals from hostile governments and corporations? It's a tough call, but I'm certainly glad that at least a few people have the guts to publicly answer that one in the affirmative.

      --

      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
  20. Re:why must you cloak your actions? are you ashame by faeryman · · Score: 0

    Jesus cares.

    --


    ,
    faeryman
  21. anonymizing services? feh by ajuda · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why do we need anonymizing services (essentially hacks) when excellent substitutes are in the works? Projects like Freenet are providing new protocols which are specifically designed with anonymity in mind.

    1. Re:anonymizing services? feh by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Why do we need anonymizing services (essentially hacks) when excellent substitutes are in the works? Projects like Freenet

      In the works, as you say. If you're a Freenet developer working in an oppressive anti-privacy regime like China, the UK or the USA, can you (currently and effectively) use Freenet to discuss Freenet development?

      Until then, anonymity is a huge boon for "criminals"; and by that I mean not just what the FBI means by criminals, I mean people doing ethical work that has been criminalised in some extreme and corrupt jurisdictions. Oh, wait, maybe I do mean what the FBI means...

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  22. let me think by subnet533 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Megaproxy.com is another free service and one of the only ones I can find that runs behind https. Does anyone know of any other web based proxies that run behind https?

  23. ssh by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 5, Informative
    You could do what I do - run squid+sshd at home, set up a tunnel with ssh port forwarding from your office to home:
    ssh -C -L 3128:<home-ip>:3128 -N <home-ip>
    and then set localhost:3128 as your proxy. Of course, this is assuming you have an always-on connection at home.
    1. Re:ssh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just did this over the weekend and it works great for me... cause I know what I'm doing. Is there simple app or process for my family to create an ssh tunnel to my *nix machine from a Win/Mac machine? The ssh clients I know of don't have any obvious way to do this.

    2. Re:ssh by diamondc · · Score: 1

      A smart, fascist system administrator would block out ALL outgoing ports cept for http and maybe ftp, so your proxy trick doesnt go around all firewalls.

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    3. Re:ssh by sporty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Search freshmeat for http tunnel. You can do some sick stuff, tunnelling ssh via http to your home machine to do a proxy. Thank God this doesn't require that much CPU for it :)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    4. Re:ssh by lscotte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even so, being fascist usually requires opening up a few extra common HTTP ports such as 8000 and 8080. So just fire up another sshd on port 8000 or 8080 on your offsite machine, and this will often get around it.

      --
      This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    5. Re:ssh by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure it does. At my workplace, even ftp is blocked - it's http-only, with just ports 80/8000/8080 open. So I run my ssh server on the default port 22, as well as on port 8000. It's a simple matter of putting in two lines in your /etc/ssh/sshd_config:

      Port 22
      Port 8000

    6. Re:ssh by Spock+the+Vulcan · · Score: 1

      Dunno about Macs. Cygwin's ssh client (and server) works pretty much the same way as the unix counterpart, option for option - you could probably create a .bat file using it, for your family :)

    7. Re:ssh by LinuxHam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A smart, fascist system administrator would block out ALL outgoing ports cept for http and maybe ftp, so your proxy trick doesnt go around all firewalls

      You can setup an ssh listener on any port. Even the most anal organizations with allowed Internet access leave 80 (http) and 443 (https) open outbound.

      If you want to host a web page at home, host it on 80 and set up an ssh listener on 443. That's also how to defeat the AOL IM block. They have listeners on almost every dad-gum port. 21, 23, 25, 80, 443, whatever. The login box isn't serving up any other services, so ALL the well-known ports can be routed to the authentication service. If you can get out on even ONE port, chances are they'll let you in on that port.

      The only large organization I've heard of that does application proxying is AT&T. Man are they bandwidth *nazis*. The shell box my friend and I use have an ssh listener on 443, and AT&T actually manages to block his ssh outbound connections on 443. Occasionally they open 22, but its closed most of the time.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
  24. What is the point of this anyway? by yatest5 · · Score: 0, Troll

    As far as I can see, so long as you're only browsing *legal* porn, there's nothing to worry about - you're not telling me the internet has *other* uses are you ;-)?

    --
    • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    1. Re:What is the point of this anyway? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised to know how many Slashdot users used Safeweb to browse porn from work....

    2. Re:What is the point of this anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is the business going? Have you seen any slowdown with the economy, or do people get depressed and actually drive up business?

    3. Re:What is the point of this anyway? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      It's a bit slow, but not because of the economy. People ALWAYS buy porn. That's one of those recession-proof industries. The online porn industry is slower now than it was because there's a ton of porn out there, and there are a lot of sites like mine where people can get pretty much everything they want for free. All in all, though, no, the recession doesn't hurt the industry.

  25. pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How am I going to look at porn while I'm at work now.

  26. Orangatango by de_boer_man · · Score: 3, Informative

    Orangatango provides a great method of surfing anonymously for extremely reasonable prices. I love their "MailBlox" email anonymizer.

    Orangatango is based on a pretty cool idea: Rather than my computer negotiating a connection with every site I want to connect to, my computer negotiates a connection with Orangatango, and Orangatango does the rest. To the outside world, it looks as though Orangatango is making all of the requests. Maybe it's not a unique idea, but they have implemented it extremely well.

    Yeah, I know that I have to give them my credit card and that makes my connection ultimately traceable through one means or another, but it's a far cry better than surfing directly through my ISP.

    They have additional benefits other than just the anonymization as well. It really is "the web on your terms" as Orangatango claims. They're worth a look! Check them out.

    Before you ask, I'll answer that no, I am not affiliated with Orangatango. The only reason that I know about them is that I applied for a development position at Orangatango a year ago. I've kept my eye on them (as well as my browser pointed at them) ever since.

    --
    .sig wanted. Inquire within.
    1. Re:Orangatango by stevey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Orangatango is based on a pretty cool idea: Rather than my computer negotiating a connection with every site I want to connect to, my computer negotiates a connection with Orangatango, and Orangatango does the rest. To the outside world, it looks as though Orangatango is making all of the requests. Maybe it's not a unique idea, but they have implemented it extremely well.

      That's what us computery people call a Proxy, or Proxy Server ...

    2. Re:Orangatango by bruckie · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I know that I have to give them my credit card and that makes my connection ultimately traceable through one means or another, but it's a far cry better than surfing directly through my ISP.

      Well, actually, Orangatango's signup page states:

      We accept all standard credit cards and money orders.

      I work for Orangatango as a developer, and we care a great deal about the privacy of our users. We specifically offered the money order option so that subscribers could maintain the highest degree of anonymity possible.

      --Bruce

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
  27. WTF? by 3waygeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anonymous Cowards here aren't, because their IP addresses are still subject to subpoena, and there's a 2 week long window where Slashdot stores the IP address as an MD5 hash, which can be easily defeated.

    How can MD5 be "easily defeated"? I was under the impression that MD5 is a one-way algorithm, so that the original IP address couldn't be recovered from the logs.

    1. Re:WTF? by fwc · · Score: 2, Informative
      Assuming that the ONLY thing stored in the MD5 hash is the IP Address, you can easily use a dictionary attack of all 256^4 to recover the original IP address.

      Or better put, it effectively would end up being a 32 bit encryption key, which is VERY easy to break.

    2. Re:WTF? by ichimunki · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      With only 2.3 billion possible IP addresses it is trivial to loop over them, hashing each as you go, and comparing it to the target. Nearly as trivial would be to build a database table that contained every possible IP address and its respective hash. Then you could just put your list of target hashes into a table and do a join to get matches.

      This approach assumes you know that the hash represents a valid, unaltered IP address. You could also show that the hash does *not* derive from a valid IP address as well, since the hash would not be in your list of 2.3 billion possible hashes.

      I can't see any reason to store IP addresses this way, though. Maybe someone from the Slash development team could elaborate on this.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    3. Re:WTF? by ichimunki · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ack! Dyslexia (or something)!

      4.29 billion!

      --
      I do not have a signature
    4. Re:WTF? by pen · · Score: 1
      I can't see any reason to store IP addresses this way, though. Maybe someone from the Slash development team could elaborate on this.

      Since I also run a submission-based website, I would imagine that the IP addresses are stored to make it easy to clean up after a spam flood. My site, however, deletes the IP address from the database as soon as the submission is approved or rejected. I agree, however, that hashing the IP address is a waste of time, for the reasons already stated by another poster (easy to reverse).

    5. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your impression is mistaken. Not only is MD5 a particularly poor choice of algorithm, but it's being asked to do the impossible here.

      An IPv4 address of 32 bits is far shorter than an MD5 pattern of 128 bits so you'd expect minimal collisions (even though it is MD5), and the potential keyspace is easily small enough to simply calculate once and store as a 64 gigabyte flat lookup table, which is definitely not an impossible space/time tradeoff, as you can actually go out and buy single harddisks of that approximate size now.

      That's even if MD5 was unusually slow, which it isn't, so a dictionary attack of 2^32, which you'd have to do once to generate the table anyway, would be an efficient and (on a modern machine) disquietingly quick search.

      Please, avoid MD5 in any case. It's highly susceptible to collisions, colliding consistently a long way before a 128-bit hash should in experimental tests on random data, and strongly deprecated as a secure hash algorithm in lieu of a complete published break, which would not come as a big surprise to many cryptanalysts.

      I've personally seen an experimental attack (roughly 2^35 time with 16 megabyte memory) specifically on MD5 that uses a 4096 bit pad to go from one, specified MD5 state to any state you choose, which makes collisions terrifyingly easy. This attack has not yet been published, as the precise reason for the generalised attack's success on MD5 and near-failure (worse than brute in some cases, usually worse than a normal birthday attack) on many other algorithms is not yet known due to how the attack was derived (thus limiting it's usefulness to white-hats for the time being), but it would probably constitute a complete break of the hash anyway. (Length strengthening does have an effect, by the way. It makes the attack pad slightly longer, as you have to include the original length pad in the source state and allow for the new length pad to be part of the attack pad. But this is an AC Slashdot post, not a white paper, and the very subject of this post reminds me that my IP is being logged anyway, so I'll skip the juicy details.)

      Please, if you're designing anything that needs a really fast hash resistant to collisions or a error-detection code that isn't designed to catch deliberate alterations, just use a good CRC, relish the extra CPU cycles you earn, and don't give yourself any complacent illusions of security.

      If you need a secure one-way hash, use SHA1 or RIPEMD160, and think carefully about how you use them. (SHA-256/384/512 look okay so far but haven't had enough attention to recommend, especially in the current political climate, and I haven't examined TIGER or HAVAL enough to form an opinion.)

      In a position like this, you may as well go for speed and just store the IPs raw. This has the logistical advantage of being able to do trivial subnet detection if necessary, too - a hashed IP makes that obviously inconvenient.

  28. Paid Anonymizing is a Joke by 00Monkey · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    When you pay for an Anonymizing Service, they know who you are. Other people may not be able to directly track you but the Anonymizing service can....which means all they have to do is tell the people that want to know. How much do you trust your paid Anonymizing service?

    1. Re:Paid Anonymizing is a Joke by Chakat · · Score: 1

      If it makes you nervous, then just get a prepaid credit card. All you have to do is use the card just to pay for your anonymizing service, and not give your real name. Or, you could also ensure that the anonymizing service has a good privacy policy, so that you can sue if they sell your info. Yeah, if takes a bit more effort, but the people running the anonymizers have to eat, too.

      --

      If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.

    2. Re:Paid Anonymizing is a Joke by fizzbin · · Score: 1
      An even better idea is to use a money order, and no return address. That way, all the snoops have is a userid, and the IP addresses associated with that userid over the last 7 days.

      If the envelope is saved, they have a postmark. If a copy of the MO is saved, they have whatever fake name you signed the MO with, and the location of the post office, bank or grocery store you bought it from. Those items are of marginal usefulness to an investigator, and in any case it is highly unlikely the MO or envelope would be saved.

      So the ability to use an MO is practically equivalent to a free, anonymous userid. You could theoretically purchase multiple userids and rotate between them if you were paranoid enough, and if the cost per userid were low enough.

      --
      Fizz
    3. Re:Paid Anonymizing is a Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How much do you trust your paid Anonymizing service?

      How much to you trust an unpaid service ? Given the right amount of paranoia one may quite well start thinking along the line those services do cost money ... yet this service does not charge me ... so some interested party must be funding it.

      Might be you'd just revert to wrapping letters around stones which you can throw into people's windows, then. It's cheap, it's effective and the running away is good for your health, too.

    4. Re:Paid Anonymizing is a Joke by H310iSe · · Score: 1
      why SEND them a money-order? A ...friend... used to do this when ...she... needed to transer money anonymously. Go to western union. Give them cash. Say your name is Joe Smith. Set up the pickup to have a user name and password (user SAFE password WEB?) Leave western union. Now anyone anywhere in the world there is a western union can go in, say SAFE WEB and get the money.

      This was relied upon quite heavily. Not sure if it still works the same way but ....

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    5. Re:Paid Anonymizing is a Joke by 00Monkey · · Score: 1

      LOL, I'd like to know how I got changed from "Score: 2, Insightful" to "Score: 1, Flamebait"...for some reason that's pretty funny to me.

  29. Foreign citizens are fscked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the biggest impact here will be on those in foreign, generally more oppresive countries.
    Unlike the U.S. (yet), many countries have government mandated filtering of content.
    It is a fact that many of SafeWeb's Triangleboy users were from China, Central Asia, the Middle East...

    Wait...can there be a link? I'm only speculating, but the CIA was part investor in SafeWeb, and the CIA has now been accused of carrying covert bombing in Afghanistan using their SPY PLANES (and not telling the military about it....)

    Too much that is possible at this point.

  30. Corporation Oppression? by robvasquez · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I suppose you whine that you can't call Bejing all day either!

    Just because they put a 900mhz PC on your desk, your office shares a T3, and you've got nothing better to do, doesn't mean you can snerf all day.

  31. Use a proxy server... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    Just do a search on google for 'proxy server'. I use one all the time mainly because it speeds my web browsing up. Being anonymous is a side benefit.

    1. Re:Use a proxy server... by frost22 · · Score: 1

      And you use other peoples resources without permission. Sucker.

      Ever heard of proxy logs ? Of network analying tools ? Do you even know who runs that particular proxy server ?

      A company I worked for deployed its first web proxy without logs, without restrictions on the CONNECT method, and accessible to everyone. Heck, we would'nt have cared for the occasional stranger coming along. But within a week or so an incredible number of cretins hat discovered that machine, and we were swamped in abuse reports. Not to even mention Bandwidth issues. None of these suckers was a customer of ours - only externals strolling in abd taking what wan't theirs.

      Why can't people stop (ab)using other people's stuff ? Things like that make wish back the old times, when you would call up the guy's sysadmin and the pisser would loose his job, his account at university or something.

      f.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  32. Irrelevant? by GNaturist · · Score: 1

    How does this relate to the question at hand about avoiding the corporate filtering of websites?

    --
    If people were meant to go around nude, they would be born that way!
    1. Re:Irrelevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple...

      Don't browse porn sites from work. Do so only at home.

  33. Another one still working by pyramidos · · Score: 0

    Blackcode, at www.blackcode.com, still has an anonymizer, along with a number of other t00lz. I'm not sure what good an anonymizer is if you're using an ISP, however, since they can still log your http-requests. .'.

    1. Re:Another one still working by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1

      Your ISP can't log your http requests if you make a secure connection to the proxy server as one does with SafeWeb.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    2. Re:Another one still working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better mark that 'does' as past tense.

      "... as one DID with safeweb."

  34. Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by zarathustra93 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good god, if you want to surf for pr0n, do it at home. What is so hard about that? While at work, you should be doing your job and not spending your whole time surfing the internet. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but chances are that your employer has hired you to do something other than surf. This isn't the man trying to smack you down afterall :-)

  35. Its called Economics, Stupid. by libertynews · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Life costs money. It ain't free. Bandwidth costs money, as do computers, support people and lawyers. If you have no income you cannot maintain a service, no matter how 'popular' it is. If something is useful to you, then you ought to be willing to support it monitarily. Otherwise it is going to go away.

    TANSTAAFL

    --
    Remember Lexington Green!
    1. Re:Its called Economics, Stupid. by CWCarlson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bah!

      Life doesn't cost money--we've made it so we're in the habit of paying for the things we need. Services only cost money until the service provider asks that he or she be given something that's more directly necessary, or desirable.

      Don't confuse economics (the 'science' of managing scarcity) with money.

      Finally, go look at Daniel Quinn's 'Beyond Civilization' for a little insight into how we can (and why we should) stop thinking in terms of the old ways (which really are tremendously new).

      --- Chris

    2. Re:Its called Economics, Stupid. by stubear · · Score: 1

      Actually, services have always cost something. Ancient peoples would barter livestock or grain for services in trade. For instace, I might need some chickens for food. I have some wheat I would be willing to trade in kind. You might be willing to give me five chickens for a bag of wheat. The value placed on something is based on supply and demand. I might thik that five chickens is not enough for one bag of wheat. Given that wheat is scare this year I can ask for eight chickens for this one bag of wheat. I have given something of value for something or service I need in return.

      Eventually this barter system evolved into coins. The Romans developed a system by which precious metals could be traded for the same livestock or grain. You set the price of ten gold coins for those very same five chickens. I might be able to go down a few stalls at the market and get the same five chickens for eight gold coins. Again, supply and demand determine the value of the chickens.

      Obviously this system has further evolved into paper money representing gold in a vault. The value of the paper money is based on how much gold is in the vault and how much that gold is valued at any one point in time.

      Obviously I've oversimplified things but the idea that things used to be free is absurd. Value has always been placed on goods and services people traded. Perhaps before civilizaitons arose things were "free" only in as much as there were two options. Take or die. If you did not hunt for food you would not get any food. There were no markets where you could trade your firewood for meat.

    3. Re:Its called Economics, Stupid. by eklipz19 · · Score: 1

      What you are proposing is the idea of "Equality of Outcome" as opposed to our current value of "Equal Opportunity", and this, I'm afraid to say, is the same thing that caused the Soviet Union to collapse.

      The simple fact is, once people begin to realize that no matter how hard they work for something, they're never going to get anything more than their drunken neighor, the disillusionment sets in pretty quickly, and all of a sudden, nobody is doing any more work then the aforementioned drunken neighbor. Not the way to run an economy, just ask Gorbachev.

      Aside from that, though, the idea of surfing for pr0n from work, though tempting due to fast connections, isn't the best idea in the world. We (my boss and I) canned two people for doing just that, and you've really got to ask yourself if your libido is more important to you than eating. When you're at work, you don't always have to do work, but stay off the pr0n. Read slashdot, use the time to learn things that you can't learn on a pr0nsite.

      ek

    4. Re:Its called Economics, Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh looky looky... A Communist in the making.

      Now all you need to do is overthrow the government, kill all the lawyers and your dream shall be complete.

  36. Oh the drama! by FortKnox · · Score: 2

    are there any free services left for those suffering from corporate oppression?"

    What a pile of crap! I understand invasion of privacy, but you are just paranoid!
    Big brother is watching you, the illuminati can hear you through copper wires! If you are that paranoid, my friend, the best thing for you to do is move to siberia and become a hermit.

    Quite frankly, no one is watching, and if they are (we're talking millions of transactions a second. Something no one would do for under $80k/year), you probably don't do anything that would attract their attention. Quit freaking out!

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Oh the drama! by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      You're kidding right? "No one is watching"?

      If you are an American you can barely leave your house without being watched. There are cameras *everywhere* these days, many that you can't see, too.

      And internet traffic? That's even easier to monitor, especially at corporations with proxy servers-- sure, most traffic is legitimate, but it's simple to route all traffic to mail.yahoo.com (or any other URL, or a URL containing specific strings, or even upon retrieving a web page to check it for certain keywords) to a standard 403 page-- or better yet, write that event out to a text file. Then when the employee gets a certain number of writes to that file, you look at what they've been up to and talk to their manager.

      The real questions are more difficult. At what level do you allow workers the freedom to use the internet for personal stuff? What does it say about your workers if they intentionally bypass your legitimate security protocols (i.e. using SafeWeb, etc)? And are you better off firing such malcontents, or simply scaring them into submission in the first place?

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:Oh the drama! by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      The real questions are more difficult. At what level do you allow workers the freedom to use the internet for personal stuff?

      Simple answer: Is it the company's computer?
      You know the rest of the answer.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    3. Re:Oh the drama! by GMontag · · Score: 2

      Oh great, you had to mention the illuminati!

      Fantastic, now they will be after all of us, one by one we will be expired by seemingly natural causes.

      It is just like when they

    4. Re:Oh the drama! by Arandir · · Score: 2

      At what level do you allow workers the freedom to use the internet for personal stuff?

      Since the use of company owned computers for company use is such a hard idea for spazdots to grok, here is a simple ananogy:

      Joe: "I'm here to fix your computer."
      Ichimunki: "It's in the den."
      Joe: "Right. Remember, I charge $50 an hour."
      Ichimunki: "That's okay just as long as you fix it."
      ...
      two hours later in the den
      ...
      Ichimunki: "What the hell are you doing?"
      Joe: "Check out the tits on that momma!"
      Ichimunki: "You're supposed to be fixing the computer, not jerking to pr0n!"
      Joe: "Hey relax, I got the computer fixed an hour ago."
      Ichimunki: "You can't use my stuff to surf SlutDot damn you!"
      Joe: "Hey, it's my freedom. Don't oppress me. Here's my bill for two hours of work."

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    5. Re:Oh the drama! by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Whatever. I think you know that's an oversimplification at best. But if you need to get in your digs at the Slashdot mainstream [sic], then go ahead. Is your ego soothed now?

      --
      I do not have a signature
    6. Re:Oh the drama! by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I feel much better now that I used my empoyer's resources to post that :-)

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  37. R.I.P. by DarkZero · · Score: 1

    Rest in peace, free anonymous services. We'll bury you in a shallow grave right next to the free long distance calling services and the free mailing list services.

    1. Re:R.I.P. by pthisis · · Score: 2

      egroups isn't dead; it was bought by Yahoo! and it's now groups.yahoo.com -- you can still set up free mailing lists there.

      (All Python code, too, as are maps.yahoo.com and mail.yahoo.com)

      Sumner

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  38. pity... by ariehk · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    It's a pity that the anonymizers are dying. There are a whole number of pressures on them:



    * The dryup in advertising revenue. A lot of these site's revenue was from the banners they add in on the webpages you viewed using them. The global slowdown has cut all advertising budgets, so they lose out.


    * As someone pointed out, the nature of anonymizing sites is that they dont advertise much themselves, so no mass audience.


    * A lot of these sites were used in schools and libraries who blocked certain URLS. People used the anonymizers to get round the blocks. However, the sysadmins got wise to this and blocked the major anonymous web services. So much of the key audience is cut out.


    It's a pity, though. Next time I want to ogle at goatpr0n at the public library, my trusty safeWeb will be gone.

    --
    These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined. -- Homer Simpson
  39. Re:why must you cloak your actions? are you ashame by Drownedrat · · Score: 1

    For some people it's not always safe to appear on a traceable system. Whistle blowers could loose their jobs, or in some cicles life and limb. People don't just use these services for porn you know (though that may be the primary use) D

  40. you need more and different than anonymizing by budGibson · · Score: 1

    This article from the register points up that there is much more to being anonymous than using an anonymizer. It's really a change in web lifestyle and a move back from credit to cash along with judicious use of third-party proxies and cutting off alot of convenience features in your browser. Even then, you have just made people go through a few more layers of indirection to get to you. This might insulate you (for a time) from annoying marketers, but it will not insulate you from the federal government.

  41. HOw is any digital connection ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever Anonymous?

    That is a joke i keep seeing.

    But over here little ma bells say they cannot trace phone calls, but the like to joke, as i know how their switch gear works.

    Anyway food for thought i guess.

  42. http://www.a4u.at : This one is still up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can still navigate the web through a proxy at http://www.a4u.net. I use this service quite often and it works well for me.

  43. Re:why must you cloak your actions? are you ashame by easter1916 · · Score: 1

    I think you meant to say "liberal", not "libertarian".

  44. Open source, anonym, p2p proxy service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any ideas on whether such a thing would possible?
    Where a request is made, it is then masked by being encrypted and distributed around the network for anonymity and then the bit I'm not sure on, it then travels back to the requesting node without other nodes knowing the address of the requester (or if nessicary with a minimal amount of nodes knowing).

    Possibly kind of similar to the way that freenet works. I think if such a system could be implimented it would a lot better security than a central proxy service like safeweb or similar

  45. http://www.the-cloak.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems to work sometimes. I prefered safeweb but there u go

    Dru

  46. Hushmail and the law in the Republic of Ireland by easter1916 · · Score: 1

    hushmail operates out of Ireland, where there is strong legal protection for private use of encryption (i.e., the security services cannot request the keys or demand that an encrypted communication be decrypted). Not an anonymizer service (unless they offer one, haven't been to their site in ages), but still, it offers some privacy.

    1. Re:Hushmail and the law in the Republic of Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure about that? I contacted them a while back and they said their actual mail servers were located in Vancouver, BC, while the company itself was based in Anguilla (the research and development arm of it).

      I'm not at all sure what the hell is where, as the company is a Delaware corporation (WTF? Is everything incorporated in Delaware), servers in Canada, headquarters in Ireland, etc....

    2. Re:Hushmail and the law in the Republic of Ireland by easter1916 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Phil Zimmermann of PGP fame relocated to Dublin when he joined Hushmail. I think it's also legally headquartered there because of the afore-mentioned encryption laws. Not sure about other locations...

  47. New anonimizers all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I developed an anonymous surfing service and it has been running for 3 months now. Most of my users are from Saudi Arabia, China and the United Arab Emirates and 99% of the bandwidth goes to porn. This is why the free services tend to disappear over time.

    The company I developed this for is using it to create a name for its other fee-based products (secure storage and a public key exchange for encrypted email). There will always be free services as long as companies need to create a presence online.

    I just wanted to add my two cents and am not trying to advertising for my service. Therefore I have not provided a link to the service.

    1. Re:New anonimizers all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just wanted to add my two cents and am not trying to advertising for my service. Therefore I have not provided a link to the service.
      heh, you probably don't want to be "found" either. SA, china, et al take an active stance against open proxies and block them as they find them.
  48. New Economy Gnomes... by chinton · · Score: 2

    Gee, I wonder why all these companies are failing... Lets look at their business model, shall we?

    Step 1. Provide a cool, useful service for free.

    Step 2. ???

    Step 3. Profit.

  49. Well, a bit less by srichman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There are lots of invalid IP addresses and private IP addresses that can't transit the Internet.

    1. Re:Well, a bit less by ichimunki · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Just for the sake of completeness I would probably check those. They are a small portion of the total possible number. My main point was to correct my math error. The limit on IP addresses is 256**4, which is approx 4.3 billion.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    2. Re:Well, a bit less by srichman · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      They are a small portion of the total possible number.
      Agreed, I was just being anal. There are 2^24 + 2^20 + 2^16 = 17,891,328 private IP addresses. I don't know offhand how many representable IP addresses are invalid (I'd have to look up an RFC and I'm lazy), but it's not too many.
      My main point was to correct my math error.
      I know :)
  50. Try JAP by sketerpot · · Score: 1

    Go to the JAP page and see what they can do. They have a Java based proxy and are focusing on security over performance.

  51. Speaking of which... by 3ryon · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I have been looking to set up a proxy inside our firewall and have been unable to find one that will meet my requirements. If you know of any, please reply to this message.

    What I'm trying to accomplish: we have a VPN solution that will let users access our intranet pages, but they must use a different DNS name (one that is resolvable on the Internet) than what is used internally. Yes, this is stupid, but it's the way it is. The problem arises when they click a link on one intranet site that would bump them to another intranet site (inter-site link). The DNS name in that link will only work inside the firewall, as they can't resolve the internal name. Now, I was thinking if I could put an anonymizer-style proxy server inside the firewall, all of my users could connect to that, and the proxy server would have no problems connecting to the internal DNS names as it actually resides inside the firewall. I don't care at all about the service being anonymous, I just want a true proxy.

    Problems: I have looked at a lot of solutions, but most are either very expensive (licensing software from anonymizer.com, etc), or simply not good enough (cgi-proxy vomits on a lot of client-side Javascript). Most solutions are for *nix, which I'm not opposed to, but my team doesn't really have strong skills in that arena.

    Does anyone know of an inexpensive ( less than $1,000) proxy solution that works flawlessly (forms, Basic Authentication, SSL, Client-side Javascript) that ideally runs on Win2k? On any OS?

    1. Re:Speaking of which... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      off topic, but if you have a vpn solution, can't you configure
      the clients to use the internal nameserver, through the vpn?

      worked for my company a while ago

  52. So what have you been contributing instead of $ ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If you like anonymous surfing, you should be
    part of an ring of proxies.
    There's AT&T crowds, (source is usually available from zedz.net, but you need to have a lot of friends to get this going), or a JAP proxy
    ( http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/others/jap_en.html works great, but latency is rough to the US & th mix server isn't quite done.)
    Or you could boot a proxyfloppy instead of your normal OS:
    http://www.nameless.cultists.net
    Or run a CGI proxy :
    ( http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/ )

    If you want there to be free proxies, you better be running one.

  53. boo hoo! by Marcos+the+Jackle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Gimme a friggn break! I bet you want all software to be free too, huh?

    Anonymizer.com costs $49.96 for a year. That's $4.16 per month. Then there's anonymisers.com that costs $25 per year, half that of anonymizer.com! And you're all bent out of shape about there being no more TOTALLY free proxy services? You weren't breast fed were you?

    Look, it's a service. The internet can't be all free. (That goes for software too) Anyway, you use a credit card, right? So you pay interest. Well that's the fee you pay to use that service. Get used to it. It's costs money to host a web site, especially if it attracts a lot of bandwidth usage. Well, who's going to pay the bills? You are, that's who!

    Yeah, I remember the good old days of the eWildWest.com.net.org when WE ruled the net. I remember Tymenet, BITNET and X.25 and how fun it was to explore this big crazy whirlygig. But our eBaby.com is all grown up now... and so we should grow up with it. Change is bound to happen. And change means more opportunities. [hint, hint]

    All you slashdolts talk so liberal... about free software and Microsoft did this bad thing, and the govt wants to initiate online body cavity searches and waaaaa! But in reality you sound more like a bunch of old white plantation owners that can't believe they just lost the war.

    Flame on.

    Mk.

    1. Re:boo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But in reality you sound more like a bunch of old
      > white plantation owners that can't believe they
      > just lost the war.

      In the interest of inclusiveness and diversity
      I think it's only right that you should mention
      the black slave owners who were also disappointed
      that the South lost war.

      Sincerely,
      Your Local Diversity Monitor

  54. SSH to your house? by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised no one's mentioned this, since I've ben doingit forever. Anyone with broadband (cable/dsl) has a fast enough connection to simple SSH to their house, and forward ports over the conneciton. Thus, I have my web browser proxy set to 127.0.0.1:8000, whihc is forwarded to my home PC proxy over the SSH connection.

    1. Re:SSH to your house? by gfxguy · · Score: 2
      I'm surprised, too...because I didn't think of it.

      Did you write the proxy yourself? If so, can you give a little help, or some pointers (or some code), or just a brief explanation of what you did? If not, where'd you get it?

      Could something simple be written in PERL?

      Now I'm really interested in trying this.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:SSH to your house? by William+Fold · · Score: 2

      Try Squid, and port forward TCP 3128.

      Works well.

    3. Re:SSH to your house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are the pieces you need.

      1) A server. Now I do not exclude Windows, but I have always set up my privacy proxies on Linux. You can use the Unix of your choice of course as all these programs work on all the major platforms.

      2) A Proxy. Again, there is not strict preference here, just pick one. There are several, check out freshmeat.net or sourceforge.net for a list. Squid is the largest and most complicated but comes with RedHat.

      3) SSH, SSL or some other tunneling system. What you want to be doing here is setting up a "tunnel". This can take some mind twisting to understand how this works but in essence you are asking some client (like ssh) to accept connections on some port on your local machine, forward it over its existing connection to the server which takes the traffic and sends it to the proxy on the server. SSH or SSL act like a courier picking up your traffic and delivering it for you to the proxy.

      4) SSH client. If you go with the SSH approach which is very popular you can use the newest version of putty(might have to use dev version), or one that I have used often called TeraTermSSH. Both support the ssh feature called forwarding.

      More information of course can be found at the respective web pages, the ssh book by O'Reilly and various third party web sites.

      Cheers,

    4. Re:SSH to your house? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even simpler - the latest version of ssh/sshd can act as a socks4 server. Use the -D attribute (read the man page for ssh). Then sshd (running at your house) will do the forwarding automagically, based on the protocol.

      ssh -D8000 server.at.my.house

      Note - configure your browser to use a SOCKS v4 server, not v5.

    5. Re:SSH to your house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what surprises me, is that someone else actually did mention this already. ^_^

    6. Re:SSH to your house? by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      According to my sshd version (2.9p2), the -D option is to specify sshd to not detach. From the manpage:

      -D When this option is specified sshd will not detach and does not
      become a daemon. This allows easy monitoring of sshd.

      Perhaps you are running a different version? Regardless, I don't see how this is any simply than simply forwarding port 8000.

    7. Re:SSH to your house? by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      All I do is turn on the proxy server for apache, and use that (see the manpage for details). Squid would work just as well, only reason I don't use that is I already have httpd. running. Then all you do is forward some local port (I use 8000, you could use anything) to the remote proxy port (80 for apache, 3128 for squid, etc). Then change your browser's proxy to 127.0.0.1:<port you chose>, and you're done.

      I'd recomend using an SSH client that supports compression as well (I use Terraterm/SSH in windows) and turn the compression to around 5. That will speed up the latency of the connection between your house and your office.

    8. Re:SSH to your house? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Look at the man page for ssh. The example I gave was using ssh with the -D parameter, not sshd.

      It is also a very recent feature - make sure you have updated openssh.

  55. If you think this is bad... by JPRelph · · Score: 1

    Just be glad you don't live in the UK. Our fantastically caring government managed to sneak the R.I.P. Act onto the statute books last year, which basically gives security agencies (Police, MI5, MI6 etc.) the power to force you to hand over any encryption keys for anything on your computer, be that for email or anything else. Don't want to play? Well take two years in jail then. Marvellous.

    1. Re:If you think this is bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it time...

      In the name of Security, the new political paradigm is telling us to act like John Birch Society devotees -- turn in your neighbors, walk the party line, watch out for those gal darn reds.

      We had more freedom during the Cold War. Peacetime fucking sucks.

  56. Corporate Oppression? by Moridineas · · Score: 1
    "those suffering from corporate oppression"

    Who is suffering from, and what is corporate oppression? I'm really curious, having never encountered anything I'd put in these terms.

    Scott

    1. Re:Corporate Oppression? by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      Isn't that being rather redundant in this day an age?

      Like saying a smelly smell.

      Help! Help! I'm being corporat'ed!

      (apologies to Monty Python)

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    2. Re:Corporate Oppression? by Stupid+Sap · · Score: 1

      The African-americans forced into slavery two centuries ago were oppressed.

      More like five centuries.

    3. Re:Corporate Oppression? by Arandir · · Score: 2

      It was monday morning and my brain wasn't working too well to begin with. Then I logged in to spazdot and all remaining vestiges of rational thought evaporated. My apologies for the gross error of two centuries.

      In any event, the oppression of slaves is in no way comparable to the oppression one receives at the hands of our corporate masters when they fail to offer us free anonymizer services.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:Corporate Oppression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want some cheese with that w(H)ine of yours?!?

    5. Re:Corporate Oppression? by Arandir · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      But I don't want cheeese... I can't eat cheeese... How can you eat cheeese when the corporate masters won't let you get pr0n for freee...

      sniffle sniffle

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  57. Gibson's Walled City by schlach · · Score: 1

    What would be a neat trick is turning Freenet into a Walled City.. in addition to an anonymous, distributed, redundant file-system, add mutually anonymous chatting, emailing, web-surfing, "direct" file-sends, payment systems... all double-blind and encrypted from the host nodes, sort of like ZeroKnowledge's Freedom system.

    "Concept provided. A full proof is left as an exercise to the reader."

  58. Corporate Oppression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume that ONLY corporate oppression is bad, but any other oppression is good, or at least OK? How about just, "OPPRESSION". Oh, wait, then that would not be trolling.

  59. can you say money order? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2
    Go to the USPS and buy a money order.


    Mail money order to them in an envelope.

    Don't put a return address on the envelope.

    1. Re:can you say money order? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      With the current Anthrax situation, that might cause alarm.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:can you say money order? by Dr.+Mutex · · Score: 1
      Go to the USPS and buy a money order


      No, don't

  60. Re:Paid Anonymizing is not a Joke by Chakat · · Score: 1
    You can do the same thing with the prepaid credit cards. I've seen them at 7-11 and my bank, so I know they've got them everywhere. Plus, you've got the benefit of a credit card, as most places don't want to handle the hassle of a money order. If it ever gets to the point where you don't want the card anymore, then just toss it.

    Though you have a point as to the anonymity of the post office, nobody ever remembers someone dropping off a letter in a big city. I guess an easy way to get a similar affect with a credit card is to register at a library or other public place with a lot of people milling about.

    --

    If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.

  61. very interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    considering how socialist that area is. It is good that they see the light in the privacy arena

    1. Re:very interesting by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Pillock! Ireland is far from socialist. Rampant free-marketeering and a completely open economy are the order of the day.

  62. Re:why must you cloak your actions? are you ashame by sketerpot · · Score: 1

    Self-regulation is not the answer. Look at the recent DDoS attacks, hackers, pirates forcing intellectual property violations on unknowing sysadmins (ie Napster, FTP), and other malicious activity. Investigating Corporate oppression could not only provide the avenues to stop these, but to also prevent them.

    Government regulation is not the answer. Look at all the recent nasty things: email viruses, DDoS attacks, and a bunch of untracable script kiddies sitting in their basements making spelling mistakes. You say someone should go after all these people and get them? This would mean great privacy violations. What if I make a web page with instructions for a pipe bomb, or promoting the use of drugs? These are just free speech, but it is unlikely that everyone in, say, the FBI would share this opinion.

    Regulation gives people who make insecure products like IIS and Outlook something to hide behind, rather than being out in the open and having to shape up or fail. Remember when MS tried to blame the messenger of security bugs? They can simply say, "We need more rules!". Ugh.

  63. How to do a Safeweb setup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone know of any FAQ's that would help me setup a "safeweb" like service? Basically, we're monitored to all hell at work and I've got broadband at home. Https from work to home would be great but I've no idea how to set it up,what packages I'd need or the settings. Thanks for any help!

    Btw .. RH 7.2 @ home Windows @ work

    1. Re:How to do a Safeweb setup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CGIProxy lets you set up your own cgi-proxy with apache, mod_perl and mod_ssl.

      A word of caution: connect to your cgi proxy through ssl, otherwise your employer will still see your redirected urls in their log files...

      Good luck!!!

    2. Re:How to do a Safeweb setup? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Just use CGIProxy. It installs easily as a CGI script for Apache or any other web server. I run it on my home computer to use when I'm at school and need to access a blocked site.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  64. you answered your own question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the original "question at hand" was about anonymizing services. What you are talking about is different, although does usually fall in with anonymizers.

    If on the other hand, the poster (and you) are of the type that stealthily and carefully word remarks as so to be able to say, "No, thats not what I meant" and basically are a BULLSHIT ARTIST, then that is an issue you should be looking into before you ever worry about other issues such as this one.

    So, since to you it is "corporate filtering of websites" taken from a question of anonymous and private web access, then I must ask you... If the government did this, would you mind? Well, guess what, they DO! Get off the nader anti-corporate bandwagon that only slanders and slams one particular tentacle of the beast and join with those logical and rational folks that aim for the head.

    Or perhaps you are more comfortable with bitching and moaning from your armchair, nestled safely in your rhetoric instead of taking real action... well, that would indeed explain your reaction to the post about "quit bitching and do something".

    Rhetoric, meet Reality!

    Reality: "Hi Rhetoric, I've heard so much about you!"

    Rhetoric: [nervous] "Uhhh, I don't see anyone... I gotta run now"

  65. Too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you feel that strongly that the world needs anonymous, untraceable email, stop whining and do somthing about it.

    Sorry, but if you really feel strongly about this issue, you're a day late and a dollar short. You should've gotten off your lazy asses and stood up and done something about two or three years ago. It's too late now.

  66. Those were the good old days... by DaoudaW · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah yes, I remember an enjoyable evening using anonymizer. Then a few days later I had the chance to look through our server logs and there it was:

    www.anonymizer.com?url=barely18.com
    www.anonymizer.com?url=teenvixens.com
    ...

  67. Free JAP - For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the "Information about the cost" at JAP's website:
    http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/kosten_en.html

  68. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by MasterD · · Score: 1

    I used to work at SGI. They instituted a blocking proxy to stop all the evil pr0n surfing. It started hindering access to good sites...and the spit hit the fan when we could not download a linux kernel through this...

    Turns out some bad work just happened to be in the binary of the tar ball of one of the particular revs of the kernel. Escalated to a V.P. and suddenly, the blocker was turned off. Basically, he said that after many complaints, if workers could show that it hurting them from doing their job, he would make I.T. take it down.

    Gotta love that "smart" blocking software.

  69. Anonymity versus Abuse by chromatic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Maybe someone from the Slash development team could elaborate on this.
    Someone already has. Look for the section in blue.

    Given the lengths to which a very few people will go to ruin something for everyone else, I'm not surprised several free services aren't fighting to keep their non-paying customers.

    1. Re:Anonymity versus Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "nearly half of slash is designed to contain the damage from .01% of its' users."

      There's no point in trying to post AC, Taco, we all know it's you.

  70. An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once worked for a computer company in Dallas that all of a sudden one day decided to become Anti Second Amendment and asked all it's employees to sign a contract that they will not own handguns and will get rid of any they already own as a condition of continued employment. Can you believe the gall of this? I found another job before the week was out that paid over ten grand a year more salary and after handing my boss me letter of resignation, told him to kiss my hiney, called him a communist and told him I was going to turn the company in to the BSA for all the hundreds of copied of unlicensed software they were running throughout the company. Never did call the BSA, but it sure felt good to make him sweat anyway. Last I heard that company had recently filed bankruptcy and their stock was worth less than one penny per share. They used to have nearly 2000 employees back in their heyday. Karma and justice go hand-in-hand, eh?

    1. Re:An example by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

      What's the name of the company and when did this happen ?

    2. Re:An example by RatFink100 · · Score: 1

      yeah - but how would safeweb have helped in this situation?

    3. Re:An example by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Real slimeballs huh? And in Dallas of all places!

      But what the hell does this have to do with corporate oppression as it relates to "anonymous internet services"?

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly sounds oppressive and mighty un-Texanly too. Was this company run by foreigners, by any chance? If so, then I think I've got an idea who they were and believe me, they certainly got their come-uppance. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of slimeballs.

  71. Disposable email addresses by tgeller · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    They're not quite the same thing, but disposable email addresses can be used "anonymously" -- and you can throw them out when you're done with them.

    --Tom

    --
    Tom Geller
    1. Re:Disposable email addresses by lumberingjack · · Score: 1

      This is the same type of thing Orangatango does with their email addresses, but it's more flexible than spamcon.org.

  72. corporate opression? by kz45 · · Score: 0

    how is not being able to go to a non-work related site, while getting paid.....opression?

  73. Re:AntiProxy weirdness by MacRonin · · Score: 1

    AntiProxy.Com. Hmm ... A rather confusing concept. An anonymous www page surfing service that provides public access to its server-logs so you an see who has been using it. Doesn't that go against the point of using it? Web Server Statistics for AntiProxy.

  74. anon surf etc by K7001 · · Score: 1

    1 /use a free dialup and ensure u disable caller ID.
    2 / then connect 2 a proxy (somewhere where english ain't their first language is good).

    --
    perl -MIO::Socket -e 'IO::Socket::INET-new(PeerAddr="some.windoze.box:1
  75. the obvious question ... by Bobtree · · Score: 1

    is how long until anonimization is available as a p2p service? if the users are providing the resources themselves, with a nice freenet style mix-n-match game of "whose data is this?," then they'd be good to go.

    when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    1. Re:the obvious question ... by cdalemx · · Score: 1

      yea freenet could emplement a internet gateway type proxy then it could be closer to true anonimization, cuz most peole seem to be sujesting that you set up your own proxy but that is still tied to one praticular very traceable and identifiable ip

  76. Major Problem with Noproxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "However, SilentSurf.com features its own banner ads at the very top and bottom of every page. You should be aware that SilentSurf.com does not serve or control those banners, which are served by independent Internet advertising firms. Those firms may send cookies to your browser, track your IP address, or attempt to capture or control other information about your browser or web surfing session. At present, SilentSurf.com utilizes the services of Internet advertising firms Flycast, Burst, AdAuction, and LinkExchange to serve banners"

    So basically there is absolutely no privacy with this service. And their advertisers can "capture or control any information about your web surfing session".

    Yea great service. Please mod the parent down.

    1. Re:Major Problem with Noproxy by DMDx86 · · Score: 1

      So basically there is absolutely no privacy with this service. And their advertisers can "capture or control any information about your web surfing session".

      Yea great service. Please mod the parent down.


      Some people use web-proxy services to access websites that are BLOCKED by a coroprate or school firewall (as in my case). I could care lless if advert companies know what sites I am visiting. I do not use any sensitive information going through those services.

    2. Re:Major Problem with Noproxy by Daengbo · · Score: 0

      My best friend sells Thai jewelry over the internet, using PayPal and others, which block Thailand from using their website (what reason, I don't know). That is his reason for using a service like this, not TOTAL privacy or anonimity because of paranoia on his part. There are some VERY legitimate uses for these things.

  77. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by nullnvoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not that black and white, I'm afraid.

    As a contractor, I often work at a client site, and often those sites have what I consider to be some excessive filtering/blocking rules. For example, at my current client, all web-based email accounts are blocked-- and contractors are not, as a general rule, given email accounts on the client's corporate domain.

    Now, awareness of the dangers of email attachments is commendable, but I should also note that this same client standardizes on MS Outlook as an email client, and as such has twice been taken out by Nimda-- in spite of the blocking of services like Yahoo mail and Hotmail.

    So, by using a proxy like Safeweb, am I subverting the client's security policies? Perhaps. But by blocking my email access somewhat arbitrarily, are they hindering my effectiveness as an outide contractor? Absolutely.

    Who's right? Depends on who you ask. But, I believe that all concerned parties sometimes have motivations that are at least a little bit more complex than surfing porn on company time.

  78. Triangle Boy??? by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 1
    What about Triangle Boy? I believe that I wasn't the only person to download that piece of software for Linux ... (I couldn't get an image for the Win2K version, since it installed over the web) .. .

    The question stands ...

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
    1. Re:Triangle Boy??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triangle Boy was a proxy for SafeWeb. Without SafeWeb, Triangle Boy won't work.

  79. I'm only 14, and I just started smoking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...cock!

  80. Run your own Cgi- proxy.! by linuxrunner · · Score: 1

    I have a webpage at http://www.mcarterbrown.com where I set up my own proxy that will strip cookies, java, javascript, etc. and allow anonymous surfing. I use it, when I don't want to see annoying pop-up ads that every website under the sun are now using. Drop me a line and I'll zip you the code.

    --
    www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
    1. Re:Run your own Cgi- proxy.! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm trying to run a CGI Proxy, but I really don't have any idea how to do it.

      Whenever I try to run it in my /var/www/cgi-bin directory, I get an error message in the logs saying ExecCGI is off. How do I turn it on in that directory and use it?

  81. Anonymouse, huh. by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    maybe they could change their name.

    Mouse to Moose.

    Hey! wait a minute!

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  82. Re:can you say MIA? by glowingspleen · · Score: 3, Informative

    The new USPS regulations prohibit the delivery of mail without a return address.

    It's easier to just throw your money into a lake.

  83. Vote with your feet - www.cotse.com by MrClever · · Score: 1

    Why not check out http://www.cotse.com/

    $5.95/mth (basically free) anonymizer service etc... very cool site with mucho Unix resources.

    1. Re:Vote with your feet - www.cotse.com by damiam · · Score: 1

      That reminds me too much of a certain other site.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  84. DIY Anonymizer? Anyone? by FYMTurgon · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the problem. If you can read Slashdot then you should be smart enough to set up a Linux box at home, run socks5 on it and use that as your own anonymizer... When work started closing ports I just started running those services at home on ports 80, and 21 the two ports still open to me. It was easy to set up and it gets the job done, and I learned a few new things. Just a thought

    --
    Elbereth Gilthoniel!
  85. "Flamebait" moderation for religious comment by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why must every time someone says anything pro-Christian or pro-religion they get modded down?

    "Flamebait"? Nothing up there is flamebait as far as I can tell. It seems to be a good argument, one that one could disagree with, but not "flamebait". But someone moderated it as such, and I suspect it is due to anti-religious bias.

    There is more to the world than technology, folks.

    (P.S. I suspect this one likely will get modded down also. Just remember, there is always metamod.)

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:"Flamebait" moderation for religious comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Never Forgive??' sounds pretty Christian to me.

      I won't forgive anyone either, but I don't make hypocritical pretenses towards being christian either.

      Anti-religious bias is rarely as widespread as religious bias.

    2. Re:"Flamebait" moderation for religious comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Anti-religious bias is rarely as widespread as religious bias.

      On the contrary, it's far more widespread, at least in the U.S. Try being a member of some religion and see what happens.

    3. Re:"Flamebait" moderation for religious comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you mean "at least in the U.S. cities". Try going to the rural underbelly of America some time and see how well you fare if you proclaim yourself an athiest. Less than half the US population is in big cities, so I'd say religious bias is far more widespread, though I don't think "bias" is really the word you're looking for, more like prejudice.

    4. Re:"Flamebait" moderation for religious comment by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Why must every time someone says anything pro-Christian or pro-religion they get modded down?

      Amen brother!... As a rampant Darwin lovin' athiest I myself am prone to finding religion a little bit on the nose, *BUT* I defend to the hilt peoples right to have it.

      It's all too easy to bait or bash ppl over having a particular religious or cultural bent, but at the end of the day , the discerning athiest really has to apply the the scientific method and say "Well, on the balance of odds and evidence, I'm pretty sure theres no God; But I could be wrong"

      And presumably , as long as the religious guy ain't forcing religion down your neck, that means one has no right to reach down and yank it out of his.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  86. Was the business model really that bad? by linuxrunner · · Score: 1

    Do you really think it was just the business model of making money, or was it also the fact they probably had to spend tons of money with lawyers, etc. when there was a problem with someone using their system for something wrong.

    I can imagine that not everyone was being anonymous just because they didn't want spam, but also cracking websites.....

    So how much flack did places like this get? That's something I would like to know.
    I had freedom found at www.freedom.net and I thouroughly enjoyed their services and anti-spam and anti-cookie features. Now with an exploit in the browsers where your cookies can be read by a third party, the idea of having a cookie keeper and anonymous surfing was looking better. I hardly used the service, but they also shut down on Nov. 11th.... Well only the anonymous surfing part. They're keeping everything else, so this makes me want to believe that the shutting down of this services was not due to money, but due to lawyer problems and head aches caused by anonymous surfing. I mean really, how much does it really cost to keep a server up... ( I know it can be a lot but these people are charging $50.00 a year each.... )

    Just a thought....

    --
    www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
  87. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by slutdot · · Score: 1

    Who's right? Depends on who you ask. But, I believe that all concerned parties sometimes have motivations that are at least a little bit more complex than surfing porn on company time

    Your client is right. Since you're surfing on their line and they're paying for it, they can make the rules. If you need access to the Internet for Hotmail or Yahoo, you should subscribe to an ISP and use your wireless phone for access.

    Internet acess is a priviledge, not a right at my company. Consultants are probably last on the list in terms of providing access to the Internet considering we don't have much recourse if one of the consultant-bots brings malicious code into our network.

  88. errr... by destiney · · Score: 1


    Real hackers don't need any anonymizer...

  89. you could set up your own proxy by josepha48 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Try using proximotron (sp) it is a proxy that is used for filtering. It does however mask your user agent and things. Also using mozilla will allow you to prevent unwanted cookies. Basically between mozilla and proximitron (or another proxy) you could essentially mask who you are except your IP address. Things like user-agent and other headers going into and out of your machine are masked. Rejecting cookies and preventint companies like doublecluck from setting cookies or images on your machine also puts up a 'wall of fire' between you and the internet. Lastly I'd put up a firewall and reject all new connections from outside sources (unless your running a service like httpd or ftp or ssh). Many webservers for some reason like to make new connections to my machine after the transaction is done. This is a known issue, so my firewall rules just drop those packets to the floor and it does not hurt my system.

    I guess without these types of services people will have to learn how to protect themselves on the web. Besides how long do you think many of these services can stay free on the web? I'm kinds supprised /. has not talked about charging to post yet....

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

  90. Re:Paid Anonymizing is not a Joke by Thu+Anon+Coward · · Score: 1

    Though you have a point as to the anonymity of the post office, nobody ever remembers someone dropping off a letter in a big city.

    you're wrong, they don't have to remember them because the u.s. post office has cameras inside. remember the girl in Austin, TX who mailed a package to the Gore camp of the Bush strategic campaign materials? they caught her on film.

    --



    I'm good with numbers - .45, 7.62, 9.....
  91. Re:can you say MIA? by zenyu · · Score: 1

    Heh, I guess that explains why some of the checks I've sent took a while to cash.

    Um so what's the point if they are not checking the return address against your picture ID?

    My mail is still getting delivered so maybe this only applies in some places or only with packages?

  92. Hey, who has the sig that says by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1, Interesting

    moderators should not be anonymouse (or anonmoose) and unaccountable for their moderation?

    Most insightful sig I've ever read. Ironically it showed up about 2 weeks after a rant I had on the very subject. Brevity, I like that.

    And, NO, this is not blatant flamebait...I'm much more subtle than that. :)

    Oh, and as a rule when I have mod points from time to time; anything you read that makes you angry...reread it twice. Because flamebait will make you even angrier and sarcasm and biting satire will elude you the first time around and maybe the second.

    Waandering back on topic:
    Is anyone really suprised? I'm too lazy to look for it but there was an interview here or on macslash.com about a person that ran a anon service and the legal "hammering" they got was just astounding. The man stood his ground reguardless of the solid or shaky foundation he was on.

    His reliance was on donations, and untraceable donations at that. Very interesting and I have not heard of this place going out of business mainly because of the "principal" of it all.

    Now, that, my fellow /.'ers takes some brass ones.

    As a business, I don't see how they can stand up for someone when "business ethics" is all too often a contradiction in terms.

    Something to ponder, I suppose.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  93. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of "smart" software was that? All the ones I've worked with all you to add exemptions based on URLs or string matches. Just unblock that site. No big deal and you can still keep the workers from surfing porn.

  94. Fundamentalist oppression needs a break! by MadAhab · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I put up an anonymizing proxy somewhere and ran it for a year or so. Threw out the logs after analysis. But found out that most of my traffic was from United Arab Emirates. They used the site for surfing porn, which is blocked by their country. They also used it for reading news that I doubt they can easily get there.

    So if all it means is that some rich Arabs can get easy access to porn, so what. It might just mean that someone from a religiously repressive and sexually repressed society learns that if you look at porn, it doesn't make you blind, it doesn't turn you into a rapist, and if your spouse/SO shares your tastes, it could even enhance your sex life. And the 5% of the time they were reading news sites might just give them a wider view of the world. All of which might make their country, eventually, more tolerant. So you can whine all you want, but sometimes the inability to surf porn is the man smacking people down, and sometimes the ability to surf porn is a sign that freedom exists, regardless of whether exercising that freedom at any given time is wise or tasteful.

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  95. Corporate Oppression? by Arandir · · Score: 2

    are there any free services left for those suffering from corporate oppression?"

    Let's put things in perspective. The women forced to wear bhurkas in Afghanistan are oppressed. The dissidents in the Gulag were oppressed. The Jews in the ghetto were oppressed. The African-americans forced into slavery two centuries ago were oppressed. You are not oppressed merely because you don't get automatic anonymity when you choose to disclose your public information to a corporation.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  96. Safeweb by ricst · · Score: 1

    Safeweb performed a nice service, but it was hardly free. Safeweb was a major "cookie spammer". Anyone who visitied Safeweb got an enormous amount of cookies, all leading to the loss of privacy that Safeweb was allegedly protecting!

    1. Re:Safeweb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work at safeweb, so I guess you can take this response in whatever way you'd prefer to take it. (ie, info can be out of date, etc. etc.) Safeweb doesn't drop cookies on the client, aside from client settings, privacy level etc... The enormous amount of cookies that you are finding are cookies from websites that you are viewing through Safeweb. The server software doesn't bother storing cookies on server side, but rather passes them along + encodes them so they can't be tracked.

  97. I tried to buy the whole thing. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Months ago, when load started crashing Safeweb regularly, I wrote to ask them if they were still interested in continuing to operate, and I offered to buy their business model for a dollar.

    Telling event: They wrote back declining the offer.

    That's when I knew they were doomed.

    --Blair

  98. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A T1, or just about any other dedicated line, costs the same amount of money whether you use it for news, files, or tits. If you use it for nothing, it costs the same as if you use it for beaver.

    So no, it doesn't cost them anything additional -- unless they use frame relay, or have some hopelessly overloaded connection already, and AnalAngels is adding to a major bottleneck.

    God forbid your company treat consultants with any repect and favour.

  99. PAY AND BE ANONYMOUS Its Guranteed!! by brockn · · Score: 0

    www.safeproxy.org - Guranteed!!

    --
    -- http://www.safeproxy.org - Free Anonymous Web Surfing
  100. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by majolley · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about a word from one of the "Web Nazis."
    I'm one of the lucky few that manages one of these oppressive machines, and well, unfortunately we need them.
    I hear a lot of whining about folks not being able to surf what they want. When we check our logs, we see that they are trying to get to p0rn, ESPN.com or spend company time looking for other jobs. We have had several sexual harrasment suits as a result of people being caught surfing p0rn, and no company wants to deal with that mess. Yes, I agree sometimes it does get in the way, but it's not that hard to open up sites as required.
    After all you're at work to do that, work. Sure surfing makes lunch a little more enjoyable, but deal with it. This is an HR issue, take it up with them if you have a problem.

  101. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...ssh & lynx

    -Frank

  102. Re:Paid Anonymizing is not a Joke by Chakat · · Score: 1

    Who says you have to drop something off inside the post office? The big blue mailbins that are on just about every street corner are much more anonymous. I guess I should have made my point clear as to where to drop off the mail.

    --

    If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.

  103. Anonymous browsing helps law enforcement by DzugZug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I worked for the Attorney General's office, we used to investigate online fraud and would routinely use anonymizer.com and other services in order to view suspect web pages without *.gov showing up in their logs. If they see a few of those hits they quickly pack up, move to a new state, and buy a new domain.

  104. black code by BiggyP · · Score: 1

    anyone tried http://www.blackcode.com ?
    seems pretty good, just has trouble fetching large files through FTP

  105. Javascript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What I'll miss about Safeweb is the way it sanitized Javascript rather than just magic it away. Megaproxy claims it will be able to provide this at some point, but currently, no one does.

  106. just curious... by harakh · · Score: 1

    This is in no way meant to beat down on people using anonymizers but..

    why would you want to use an anonymizer in a free country?
    Im using a proxy which hides my ip and I dont accept all cookies. That way I atleast hope im abit safer from companies trying to figure out my surfing habits - what else should I be concerned of? Should i be concerned? I mean its not like anyone would have a stranglehold on me by knowing I read slashdot and use the web to get new Linux software etc.. or?

  107. TheShell.com offers Anonymous accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a Shell provider TheShell.com That offers a fully anonymous account. All one needs to do is send a payment (cash/money order) and the account is setup without any logging. They are really expensive but you can run any programs you want without intrusion. Even personal http proxy servers. It is a good solution.

  108. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
    Good god, if you want to surf for pr0n, do it at home. What is so hard about that?

    Uh, because it's easier to hide it from the boss than from the wife?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  109. MIT LCS Anonymous Remailer by slyph · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, nym.alias.net, run by an MIT LCS research group, is still up and running, and has been since June of 1996.

  110. In case you haven't noticed... by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    The United States Government wants us to burn our books...

    Perhaps those of us in supposedly "free" countries need anonymizing services now more than ever!

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  111. No. Libertarians are on the TOP wing. by yerricde · · Score: 2

    on the scale of politics, libertarians are very far on the "right wing"

    Wrong. Economically, libertarians are right-wing, but socially, they're left-wing. Libertarians place themselves on the top wing, the other wings being left (liberal), right (conservative), and bottom (authoritarian). Where do you fall?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:No. Libertarians are on the TOP wing. by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Economically, libertarians are right-wing, but socially, they're left-wing.


      Libertarians like to repeat this but it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I can name quite a few left-wing social programs (such as affirmative action) which libertarians reject.

  112. Emailias is more convenient/powerful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emailias has a free trial membership (which will come in nicely this online holiday shopping season), plus:

    -Nice and clean with no banner ads or pr0n ads.

    -Automatically remembers who you're giving the "emailias" to.

    -Remembers & reminds me if I revisit the site.

    -Easy to delete the emailias (optional header added to email).

    -Handles multiple real (my) addresses.

    -Many advanced extras.

    Too easy to use...I'm hooked!

  113. People don't care (Re:CIA Investors) by frost22 · · Score: 1

    I dont't think most people bother.

    A few months ago i had a test machine from a major web cache vendor sitting in a test network. (the machine was just part of the environment, not the item tested). Well, it turned out we left the proxy port open to the world. No big deal, really ... but our test results were obtained by sniffing the LAN, often for long hours, even over night. Apparently, after some time the cache turned up in obscure 'open proxy lists'. And people started using it, for don't ask me what - from the logs I've seen, mostly japanese porn. And I 've had a few gigabytes of tcpdump trace data, with all these http requests in it; probably including all those porn passwords and whatnot.

    The funny thing is - the proxy had 'test system' spelled all across its DNS name, so people should have known better. Apparently noone bothered.

    Essentially, people don't care.

    f.

    --
    ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  114. MODERATE UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    useful info

  115. Re:Sweet Stupidity by Omnivorous+Cowbird · · Score: 1

    As for Safeweb, it's not "gone." If you're not willing to pay for the service then it clearly wasn't worth anything to you, so why are you all lamenting? If they are charging unreasonable prices then that's another story. But all you whiners make me sick.

    If you pay for the service, you need a way to pay and they need an address to bill, hence you are not anonymous and the entire purpose of the service is defeated. (I know, they have the IP address you're coming from anyway, but if you're daisy chaining (going through proxies to other proxies) that won't help them unless they can get the cooperation of the owners of the proxies between you and them.)

    --
    ______________________________________
    Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I...
  116. Hmm, I figure... by flatt · · Score: 1

    Why not make your own?
    People here should check out the free CGI Proxy Script and upload it to your own server. (Wow, that sounds like spam, but no... I only recommend it because it's cool)

    True it's still not free, but when you figure-in hosting will also bring email and all sorts of other goodies, it might be worth your while instead of always shelling out for all the anonymizing services, file storage, email, and whatever.

    Just a thought.

  117. IRA "you've got mail" by Western+Light · · Score: 1

    Hey, even terrorists want their email.

  118. Re:Corporate Opression? Gimme a break! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You "contractors" are scum anyway. Make other arrangements.

  119. The difference between now and then: by chrisvdp74656 · · Score: 1

    These days, there's only one really, really big chicken stall.

    Chris

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  120. Re:why must you cloak your actions? are you ashame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're trollin' for Jesus!

  121. Re:Guess My Age by seagis · · Score: 1


    OH,
    MY
    GOD!

    I had never heard of Brittney Cleary before, so I did a Google search on her to figure out just who the hell she is.

    I found this.

    Sad, eh?

  122. how to win wars: by History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I try to teach you people, but you just refuse to listen... anyway, I have found that the most effective way to win a long term war is to surrender. Yep, thats what I said, surrender. When Japan surrendered, many of the top brass said "you won the biggest battle, but when we rise again we will not face you but will win by sneaking in the back door". During the 80's and some of the 90's it seemed to be the case. Germany claimed that the reich movement could stay silent for a hundred years but would ultimately triumph. Well, they sure had an economical hold on the world for quite some time. Its good that the burden of Socialism is keeping them down (not to say that it wasn't good that the wall didn't fall and Germany was reunited).

    Now we have the Soviet Union. Well, they 'fell' (even though an astute observer would notice that the same old power block is getting their power back) but it would seem that their movement has made excellent strides in this country. In fact, you will notice that the amount of socialism and its associated restrictions of freedoms, liberties and dignity (along with the incompetance, unaccountability, corruption and inefficiency) have increased dramatically since the Cold War 'ended'. I have many other examples each with important impact on the world and society... however I too learn, and I know better than to think you people care. You would rather lounge around and play games, whack off to pictures of naked girls and bitch about the establishment (even though you ARE the very establishment through your support of it). I could tell you about the importance of vigilance, the necessity of action over rhetoric, the beauty of integrity, consistency and self policing... but you would rather ignore all the important world and life impacting issues and only focus on entertainment and other shallow pursuits. Then you will, instead of through action, employ a superficial shield of rhetoric that you boast and brag about, fueling it with your 'angst' and hypocritical intollerance. You will refuse to employ logic and reason, refuse to judge yourself first and foremost before you judge others (and that means by the SAME standard), and you will let yourself be told what to think, like, wear, eat, say, etc... yet ironically use those canned and parroted snippets of hate to attack others for the VERY SAME REASONS that you yourselves employ.

    Enjoy your existence! Some of you will make a positive impact on life... others will degrade themselves to lackies of tyrants and theories, ever hiding from reality and responsibility.

  123. Black Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blackcode ( http://www.blackcode.com )is still running theirs too... It's not as good, but it still strips cookies, popups, and masks os/user data. You have to create an account, but it dosent do any validation aside from an email address and they will give you webmail also... (And they've got a couple of decent tools on there too...)

  124. Only if SSH works. Re:SSH to your house? by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1
    This is only valid if ssh is allowed from the site your trying to escape.


    Yep, that's right, some of us work at companies where we can't even do a PING, and even https goes through the company proxy/filter.


    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  125. Re:Its spelled monetarily, Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ;]

  126. Re:IRA "you've got mail" by easter1916 · · Score: 1

    Yawn. You're a very stupid person.

  127. Nothing to do with anon email...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous mail who cares, thats easy, just use a stamp. It's surfing and all the ad hungry money grubbin leeches we dislike. Internet is becoming MTV only 'the owners' are knowin which latest pop, no pubed chick we're lookin' at. All guys right? he he.

    Cheers

    Topic... anon surfing dudes. Wise up.

  128. Safeweb is how I was getting around Bess at school by GlitterInTheirEyes · · Score: 1

    Guess I'll have to find another way...

    --
    *Aqua Seafoam* "Whenever people agree with me I feel I must be wrong" -Oscar Wilde
  129. Re:Guess My Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good lord what crap, i didnt think it was real at first

    i always said reality is much stranger then fiction

  130. sshd -p443 by achurch · · Score: 2

    This is only valid if ssh is allowed from the site your trying to escape.

    Then set up an SSH server listening on port 443 on the machine you want to send to, and tunnel through your proxy as if you were doing an SSL connection. Works fine for me, though YMMV depending on the fascistness of your sysadmin. Ugly source code here for anyone interested.

  131. another good service by abdulla · · Score: 1

    try www.megaproxy.com

  132. Not so simple. you can always be found. by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    what spammers use:

    -open mail relays. For http this would be things like proxy's (~=safeweb)
    -throwaway accounts. You can use them as well. Note that that is not truly anonymous, they can stil track where you are coming from (ip+time+callerid)

    the reg had nice acticle about this a short while ago. "Do-it-yourself Internet anonymity". they have a article about safeweb as well.

  133. Idiot retard cocksucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A database of every IP address and its MD5 would easily fit in a few gigabytes, and take no more than a few seconds to search.

  134. Why simpler? Read On [was Re:SSH to your house?] by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    It is simpler because a SOCKS server dynamically forwards whichever ports it needs to, based on the protocol. Any SOCKSified client can connect to ssh on the local listening port, and the remote part (sshd) will forward the request to the appropriate remote port.

  135. Re:can you say MIA? by ryanwright · · Score: 2

    The new USPS regulations prohibit the delivery of mail without a return address.

    What the hell are you talking about? I rarely put a return address on anything. Mailed a bunch of stuff out just the other day without return addresses and all got to their destinations just fine. I've yet to see anything about return addresses being required. Without some sort of proof, I've got to say, you've been misinformed...

    --
    -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig