I agree, but the only problem is the "bad guys" are probably going to try really hard to look like "good guys".
I guess the real solution is to open source this stuff ( I think ZKS might actually be doing this ), analyze the code, and then compile it yourself. But then setting up the network which Freedom uses to create anonymity might raise further issues.
The whole point of this is that anonymity is not easy, and relying on an outside service to create anonymity for you raises (potential) problems. But if all you're worried about is marketers tracking your surfing, then Freedom was overkill in the first place.
I've read the whitepaper for Freedom and I was interested in using the service, but how do you prove that the software you are running functions exactly as the white paper says it does.
If you trust something simply because the person selling it wrote a paper saying its secure then good for you.
I'm not saying this IS the case with Freedom, but come on, someone gives you a piece of software and a paper explaining how it works and you trust them immediately with you privacy?
Anyone else have the idea that anonymizers are just fronts for whatever agency is interested in your surfing habits?
Think about it, what better way is there to keep track of people than to have everybody surf through one specific bottleneck where their activities can be easily monitored.
The traffic might be anonymous to the website you are going to, but it sure ain't anonymous to the anonymizer itself.
It was odd how cool and natural all of the reporters and anchors were. Everybody said they were shocked, but nobody seemed to be.
I disagree. Numerous times i've seen even the major network anchors almost breakdown in tears. There was even video of the president on the verge of tears.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but the only problem is the "bad guys" are probably going to try really hard to look like "good guys".
I guess the real solution is to open source this stuff ( I think ZKS might actually be doing this ), analyze the code, and then compile it yourself. But then setting up the network which Freedom uses to create anonymity might raise further issues.
The whole point of this is that anonymity is not easy, and relying on an outside service to create anonymity for you raises (potential) problems. But if all you're worried about is marketers tracking your surfing, then Freedom was overkill in the first place.
I've read the whitepaper for Freedom and I was interested in using the service, but how do you prove that the software you are running functions exactly as the white paper says it does.
If you trust something simply because the person selling it wrote a paper saying its secure then good for you.
I'm not saying this IS the case with Freedom, but come on, someone gives you a piece of software and a paper explaining how it works and you trust them immediately with you privacy?
yeah, i'm the idiot.
Anyone else have the idea that anonymizers are just fronts for whatever agency is interested in your surfing habits?
Think about it, what better way is there to keep track of people than to have everybody surf through one specific bottleneck where their activities can be easily monitored.
The traffic might be anonymous to the website you are going to, but it sure ain't anonymous to the anonymizer itself.
Just a thought.
I disagree. Numerous times i've seen even the major network anchors almost breakdown in tears. There was even video of the president on the verge of tears.
Its been around for at least 4-5 years already.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fatuous
i've found my new word for the day.