Slashdot Mirror


Do You Need to Surf Anonymously?

An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld has up an article entitled 'How to Surf Anonymously without a Trace'. It purports to offer tips on how to avoid detection by anyone attempting to monitor your internet access. 'If you don't like the limitations imposed on you by [proxy] sites like the Cloak or would simply prefer to configure anonymous surfing yourself, you can easily set up your browser to use an anonymous proxy server to sit between you and the sites you visit. To use an anonymous proxy server with your browser, first find an anonymous proxy server. Hundreds of free, public proxy servers are available, but many frequently go offline or are very slow. Many sites compile lists of these proxy servers, including Public Proxy Servers and the Atom InterSoft proxy server list.'"

8 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Public Proxy != Anonymous by db32 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do you know who owns it? Do you know what kind of logs they keep? Do you know who else reads their logs? Seems to me like a terribly good way to fish for undesireables would be to setup an "anonymous" proxy and wait for people to start using it. I mean, its not like police go out and pretend to be hookers to catch 'johns', or pretend to be dealers to catch users, or even pretend to be young children to catch pedophiles. If you don't own it, you can't trust it, and if you do own it then its not terribly anonymous. Even the whole onion router business has come into question as of late.

    Not a whole lot of anonymous anything left on the internet these days with all the data mining that goes on. The best you can do is leech wireless and pretend to be someone else.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Public Proxy != Anonymous by LordSnooty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if you are doing something that you don't want people to know you are doing, my question is, what the hell is wrong with you?
      I'm in China and I'm researching about local groups who campaign for democracy, you insensitive clod!

      And given what's happening to privacy and protest in some Western countries. soon the same reasons may apply there too.
    2. Re:Public Proxy != Anonymous by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have you considered that there might be political reasons? Let's say I work for a rabid Bush supporter, do I want him to know that I'm a regular on the Daily Kos even though it's not forbidden to go there on my lunch break? Do I want my ISP to know what sort of games I like to play at home? Do I want you to see all of my browsing habits so that you can harass me based on what you know?

      How about a battered wife looking for a way out of her marriage, and a husband who clams to be able to read whatever she writes? (for the record, this really happened to someone I know, but luckily she's free of him now)

      There will always be cases where you don't want people to know what you're doing. Many of these cases are legitimate interests in preserving mere privacy, and some are because there really is avoiding oppression.

    3. Re:Public Proxy != Anonymous by darthnoodles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If your married, and your wife doesn't want you looking at porn, then she should offer alternatives or shut up.

      Nice slant.
      Does this apply too?

      If your married, and your wife doesn't want you porking her sister/best friend/random woman, then she should offer alternatives or shut up.
      Let's slant it the other way:
      - If your married, and your wife doesn't want you looking at porn, then be happy with what you have (your wife) or shut up, or leave her.
      - If your married, and your wife doesn't want you porking her sister/best friend/random woman, then be happy with what you have (your wife) or shut up, or leave her.
      Why is the responsibility on her to stop you from looking at something she doesn't want you to look at?
      Now let's try being neutral:
      If your married, and your wife doesn't want you looking at porn, then talk to her about it and work out a mutually beneficial understanding.
    4. Re:Public Proxy != Anonymous by db32 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your other replyer "Lumpy" doesn't know what he is talking about.

      1. You are correct, the MAC address doesn't get any farther than the first router. That is how routers operate, by swapping the mac address in the packet with their own and the next hop while leaving the network address the same so it can be 'routed' there.
      2. If you own the whole network you can eventually trace a mac back to an originating port on a switch, but that involves owning quite a bit of gear, and its not like its a logged thing, switches eventually allow mac entries to expire or things would break if you moved ports on the switch.
      3. In the instance of home networking you are behind a router before you even get to your ISPs router, they never see your mac (unless you are directly connected to the modem, but we are talking leeching wireless).
      4. MAC address ARE NOT UNIQUE! They are nearly unique, but if you operate under the idea that mac addresses are unique then your life will be hell when you have to track down a duplicate MAC on a large enterprise network because you believe it cannot happen. It does, although infrequently, and it makes networking very very 'interesting' when it happens.

      The best they can do is rush down and grab that wireless access points within a few minutes of the last packet you sent and try and get the MAC before it gets flushed. Then they would have to go after the manufacturer to try and associate that MAC to YOU purchasing it. Now given that the manufacturer has likely made more than one device with that same MAC under the correct assumption they will likely never exist on the same network, and also that a MAC is not a hard thing to spoof, that information is completely worthless. Saying they can track you down based on your MAC is like saying I can identify an individual based on him using 192.168.100.15. Ultimately the best they can really do is determine that the traffic came from the IP the ISP assigned, and there is no real way to verify with any accuracy the traffic came from any specific hardware.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    5. Re:Public Proxy != Anonymous by db32 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only when you and the investigator are both active on the network at the same time in which case changing your MAC really makes no real difference. As I mentioned, the MAC goes away within minutes on the network, its not transmitted past the first hop router, and its not unique beyond the 1st hop router. Given that that end of forensics is part of my job I am pretty sure I know how it works. I don't care what your friends tell you, the cops, feds, and investigators are not using MAC addresses as 'fingerprints' of hardware. It just simply cannot be used like that with even a shred of reliability. The only place your MAC address even is used in ANY part of the connection is between your computer and your default gateway with any switches (not hubs) in between keeping that record for a few minutes.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  2. Re:honestly... I was thinking about this by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ah, the classic fascist question (What do you have to hide, my slave.). Despite the obvious fact that you don't own me, and have no right to even ask the question, I will reply, in 4 parts:

    1st: Throughout history, there have been wonderfull governments, but also some horrible governments. And even the Wonderfull Governments often keep records, that get passed on to their replacement, horrible governments when the evil SOB's have revolution. Governments have in the past killed people for: Being Jewish. Being Gay. Belonging to a political party that objected to that government. Asking if the government had killed other people. Being a family member of any of the above people. Looking at Pornography. While I trust (just barely) the current government, I do not trust the unknown government that will take power in 4 years, because I don't know who they are yet.

    2nd: If you have nothing to hide, then that quite literally means you are willing to let me photograph you naked? And I get full rights to that photograph - so I can show it to your neighbors?

    Because THAT is what you are saying. You DO have things you do not want people to see. So do I. Yours might be your pretty body. Mine might be the fact that I am gay. And a member of the legalize marijuana political action group. And a member of the "Send the Africans back to Africa" Charity. Also, I routinely travel 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. And get drunk 1/month in my closet. And I once masturbated while looking at pictures of dead dogs. And I collect my own snot and eat it. I still wet my bed. I won't do business with those dirty, thieving Jews. And I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. And I despise children. All of these things are legal (or at least not serious crimes worthy of being investigated). Now, assuming I was not being sarcastic, do you think I would have a job tomorrow if my boss knew them?

    3rd consider this: I have a right to privacy, not because I have things to hide, but because trust is a two way street. Think about a parent. What would you think of a father that says "My honor student has never done anything wrong. But just to be 'sure', I hired a private investigator to follow them around all the time, sneak into his bedroom at night and check his computer, diary, underwear draw" It takes WAY too much effort and cost for the government to actually fairly investigate everyone. So we tell them that if they want to investigate people, they must prove it to a judge that they are worth investigating. If the cop can't do that, then THE COPS ARE THE SICKO PERVERTS. Just like the dad/mom that treated their honor student like a gangbanger, if the government does the same to us, THEY demonstrate that they are A) poor government, B) can't be trusted themselves and C) have serious emotional problems.

    4th: The last, best argument is simple. Every test has a false positive rate as well as a false negative rate. If you test too many people, you end up convicting the innocent more than the guilty. I.E. if you have a test that 5% of the time falsely says "drug user" even if they are not, and use it on a population where only 1% of the people use drugs, than you arrest, charge and try 5 innocent people for every 1 guilty. Those innocent had nothing to hide. Hackers break into your computer, zombifie it and use it to store child porn. You don't know about this, till the police track down your computer as the server for a child porn ring, break down your door and arrest you. (Several cases like this exist).

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  3. right to Anonymousity by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, you don't have any rights to privacy in the US. This is a common misconception.

    You're quite wrong I'm glad to say. As early as the early 1800s the US Supreme Court ruled anonymousity was an important part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. The ruling said that if a person could not remain anonymous then they could not enjoy freed political speech, that if they had to watch their words then they wouldn't speak out. Denying anonymousity is a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes.

    Falcon