Re: semi-anon test from a throwaway account part deux
Jim Choate[SMTP:ravage@einstein.ssz.com] wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Anonymous Coredump wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Morlock Elloi wrote:
There is no anonymizer/webmail combination that works, AFAIK. The barrier are the cookies. They're not stoopid.
Anonymizer.com does cookie blocking with the premium accounts, I believe.
And now they have your credit card #...
Jim: You really don't like to let facts to get in the way of your brilliance, do you? Check: https://www.anonymizer.com/signup/sign_up.shtml. To quote: ---------------------------- Step 2: Please select a method of payment Method of payment: [ ] Visa or Mastercard [ ] PayPal, Cash, Check, or Money Order Should you wish to pay for Anonymizer Window Washer by Cash/Check/ Money Order, you will only be admitted to the download site following our receipt of your payment. Applicant assumes responsibility for lost cash payments sent via postal mail. ---------------------------- (The context makes it clear that straight anonymized web access can be obtained via cash/money order as well.) There are a number of other anonymizing services out there, all of which seem to have slightly different threat models, and none of which are 100% satisfactory. The parties involved are Bob, the user who wants to surf. Fred, who runs the firewall Bob has to go through. Fred is also any observer undesired by Bob. Webster, who runs the site Bob wants to see anonymously. Alice, who runs the anonymizer. Alice worries about: 1. Can Webster track a request back to Bob? 2. Can Fred see what URLs Bob is visiting? 3. Can Fred see what content those URLs send back? 4. Can Alice see what URLs Bob is visiting? 5. Can Alice see what content those URLs send back? 6. Can Fred tell that Bob is using Alice? (I'm not going to get into cookies. Most anonymizers try to do something semi intelligent with them). Here are three: They all protect against Worry 1. None protect against Worries 4 & 5, though if you could chain anonymizers, you'd be partway there. Some protect against Worries 2 and/or 3. Only one partially protects against Worry 6. ----- www.anonymizer.com Free version anonymizes user to web site. Pay version claims to encrypt URLs so fire walls can't log where you're visiting,. Does not encrypt content, but premium service allows surfing through an SSH connection to protect content from snooping on it's way to and from www.anonymizer.com, so a firewall can't log you. This does require SSH ports to be usable. Free version is slow. ------- www.cotse.com Free Anonymizes user to website. Does not encrypt data, but does encrypt URLs. Most firewalls won't know what you're doing, unless they're scanning content. Slow. --------- www.safeweb.com Free. Encrypts all data coming from website, but does not obscure URLs in requests. Pretty fast. Lots of configurable options for cookies, etc. 'Triangle Boy' option obscures to firewall that you are going thru an anonymizer, but places your requests in the hands of a P2P service running on unknown host(s) of undetermined trustworthyness. Safeweb apparently has the CIA as one of it's clients, which gives some people pause. -------------------- If Safeweb obscured URLs in a similar manner to COTSE, I'd be pretty happy. Peter Trei
You're one to talk. Money order sales are recorded on video camera. Each money order has a time stamp with vendor ID. I can't speak for youk, but it would take me as a LEA about 5 minutes to take a money order, find the vendor, and get subpeona on the video surveillance. At that point I have your face. From there I run it through the FBI files, if you've ever had a state issued photo ID it'll take about 3 days to nail you. A check has your name and address. The only way to pay in cash is two either send it through the mail (you do know about the cash sniffing dogs used at the UPS and airports don't you?) or stop by in person. Which means that they'll have a receipt and at least on person who has seen your face. Now I suppose you could send the letter with no return address and no internal note, but then how are they going to know it was YOU paying the bill for that particular account? They're not. Don't know about Pay Pal but I bet you it has similar holes in its 'anonymity'. On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Trei, Peter wrote:
Jim: You really don't like to let facts to get in the way of your brilliance, do you?
Check: https://www.anonymizer.com/signup/sign_up.shtml. To quote:
---------------------------- Step 2: Please select a method of payment Method of payment:
[ ] Visa or Mastercard [ ] PayPal, Cash, Check, or Money Order
Should you wish to pay for Anonymizer Window Washer by Cash/Check/ Money Order, you will only be admitted to the download site following our receipt of your payment.
Applicant assumes responsibility for lost cash payments sent via postal mail. ----------------------------
____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
The only way to pay in cash is two either send it through the mail (you do know about the cash sniffing dogs used at the UPS and airports don't you?)
"cash sniffing dogs?" C'mon, jim, I'm pretty paranoid, but that's just *out there*. Got a cite? I haven't read anything from Terri(sp?) Smith Tyler lately, and I can use the laugh. Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
"cash sniffing dogs?" C'mon, jim, I'm pretty paranoid, but that's just *out there*. Got a cite? I haven't read anything from Terri(sp?) Smith Tyler lately, and I can use the laugh.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day... http://www.apbonline.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2000/12/29/customs_seize122... -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
Jim wrote:
Money order sales are recorded on video camera...
All? Everywhere? I doubt it, but that's what good theatrical makeup is for.
...Each money order has a time stamp with vendor ID. I can't speak for youk, but it would take me as a LEA about 5 minutes to take a money order, find the vendor, and get subpeona on the video surveillance. At that point I have your face. From there I run it through the FBI files, if you've ever had a state issued photo ID it'll take about 3 days to nail you.
I like science fiction as well as the next Cypherpunk, but I doubt things have gotten anywhere near as far as the subject, Choate, seems to believe. It's all economics, Jim. Citation, please. Also, when I was a teenager, many moons ago, the "homeless" did an admirable job as alcohol purchasing agents. They could a similar market niche as physical anonymizers. S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why cant it be changed by Constitutional amendment since its the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ -======-------------||---:> (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jim wrote:
Money order sales are recorded on video camera...
All? Everywhere? I doubt it, but that's what good theatrical makeup is for.
I haven't seen a MO vendor that was video recorded in years. It wouldn't surprise me if the MO companies didn't require it. I don't intend to spend my time researching it. Let us know if you find one. I bet when all of us start hitting it they'll figure something is up :)
I like science fiction as well as the next Cypherpunk, but I doubt things have gotten anywhere near as far as the subject, Choate, seems to believe. It's all economics, Jim. Citation, please.
Citation to what? That MO's have time stamps?
Also, when I was a teenager, many moons ago, the "homeless" did an admirable job as alcohol purchasing agents. They could a similar market niche as physical anonymizers.
You haven't been in a liquior or convenience store in years... ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
I haven't seen a MO vendor that was video recorded in years. It wouldn't ^^^ wasn't
____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim wrote:
I haven't seen a MO vendor that was video recorded in years. It wouldn't surprise me if the MO companies didn't require it. I don't intend to spend my time researching it.
Nor do I. It was you that made the claim, however. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.
Citation to what? That MO's have time stamps?
Well, that wouldn't hurt, but you claimed that LEAs could take our picture and nail us in three days. Is this just your paranoid fantasy, or do you have an actual citation to sources that support this fanciful claim?
You haven't been in a liquior or convenience store in years...
Wrong yet again. What's your point, if any? S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why cant it be changed by Constitutional amendment since its the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ -======-------------||---:> (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Nor do I. It was you that made the claim, however. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.
??? The claim is that it is unlikely there are any MO vendors which are not protected by a video camera currently. In fact, probably haven't been for quite a number of years. It's the nature of the business. You couldn't even get insurance for such a business w/o a camera on premises. the same goes for liquior licenses and such as well. I would be so bold as to say that there hasn't been a single 'convenience store' (unless perhaps a family privately owned w/o insurance - rare industry speaking) in this country since the mid-80's that didn't have at least one camera on the cash register area so that each and every customer gets a 'mug shot'. I'd say there are zero such stores today and probably through most of the 90's as well. That you would even question such an obvious situation is pretty amazing. Call your own insurance company and ask them what the rate differences are between a store that sells MO's, liquior, etc. w/ a video surveillance system, or one without. Then ask them if they can give you at least a percentage of total sales between the two classes. Then call the city and ask them if they require security systems to get a business license (some do, some don't).
Well, that wouldn't hurt, but you claimed that LEAs could take our picture and nail us in three days. Is this just your paranoid fantasy, or do you have an actual citation to sources that support this fanciful claim?
No, I said that on average once the LEA had your photo AND you had ever had a state issued photo ID that it would take about three days for them to find your picture. The systems are getting better and better and the inter-connects over the last few years have gotten much broader. I'd suggest getting subscriptions to the government and LEA trade mags. If they've got things like partial license or a name it won't take them that long. Consider you drive your vehicle to the store. Purchase a MO. There is clearly a security camera because you watch yourself, watch yourself, watch yourself, ... I digress Anyway, you take your MO and leave the store safe that all they've got is your photo and you've never had a license issued. Your driving illegally is not an issue. You commit whatever sin against god, nature, and the American way it is that floats your boat that particular day. The police tie the MO. They go to the store and ask for the appropriate tape. In fact they ask for both tapes. Both tapes? You didn't see the camera on the corner that got the shot of your car and license plate? http://www.supercircuits.com I can especially suggest their low-light b/w CCD. I use mine on a 8" Newtonian to shoot the moon.
You haven't been in a liquior or convenience store in years...
Wrong yet again. What's your point, if any?
That your logic is fuzzy because you know very little about the mechanics of the physical security business. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim wrote:
No, I said that on average once the LEA had your photo AND you had ever had a state issued photo ID that it would take about three days for them to find your picture.
So in other words, there is no citation to back up these fanciful claims.
I'd suggest getting subscriptions to the government and LEA trade mags.
Since you seem to be implying that these trade magazines are the source of your fanciful claims, please give us a specific foundation. Making silly claims and then saying, "look it up" when challenged is intellectually dishonest, lazy or both. S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why cant it be changed by Constitutional amendment since its the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ -======-------------||---:> (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
So in other words, there is no citation to back up these fanciful claims.
What 'fanciful' claim? - That the police have photo databases? - That on average, if they have a photo to match it'll take 'em something like three days to match it?
I'd suggest getting subscriptions to the government and LEA trade mags.
Since you seem to be implying that these trade magazines are the source of your fanciful claims, please give us a specific foundation. Making silly claims and then saying, "look it up" when challenged is intellectually dishonest, lazy or both.
What 'silly' claims? You are the one making claims (ie they are 'silly') implying you have some 'knowledge'. It is you who are lazy and dishonest. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim wrote,
What 'fanciful' claim?
- That the police have photo databases?
- That on average, if they have a photo to match it'll take 'em something like three days to match it?
Yup. We all know that photo recognition technology exists. What is your EVIDENCE that right now, today, in the USA, this technology is on-line, and in use such that your claim that someone who buys a money order can be identified in three days. No coulda, woulda, shoulda, but documentation that supports this fanciful claim. I don't think you have that evidence, because I don't think it exists. Jim, as usual, you are talking through your hat. Put up or shut up, big mouth. S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why cant it be changed by Constitutional amendment since its the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ -======-------------||---:> (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Yup. We all know that photo recognition technology exists. What is your EVIDENCE that right now, today, in the USA, this technology is on-line, and in use such that your claim that someone who buys a money order can be identified in three days. No coulda, woulda, shoulda, but documentation that supports this fanciful claim. I don't think you have that evidence, because I don't think it exists. Jim, as usual, you are talking through your hat. Put up or shut up, big mouth.
What was that sporting event again? How many faces searched for across how many attendants REAL TIME? I'd venture they were searching n*m way in the range of 100,000 comparisons a second (and a single photo is a 'm way' search) and when one considers the base population of the US (300 million) and the number with records (say 1/3 of that) divided up across 50 states (remember the MO records reduce your geographic population to a couple of million, with sex and age you reduce it to say half or quarter that). The technology exists. Consider the police in London, from previous emails to this list, about their experiments in using face recognition in identifying in near real time. Consider the two posts I sent earlier that demonstrate the unanimous state to state adoption of these sorts of technologies to integrate their existing database with a variety of 'foreign' data bases over the last several years. Photo identification and management is a primary goal in every one of them. No, like it or not, the system is here and with sufficient motivation the priority to apply could be arranged. They're not going to do it for buying a nickel bag of pot at the park or running a stop sign. But that isn't my claim anyway. Hell, taking the photo to the local cops (like the security guards at the store) will at least determine if you're a regular or not. If not that might delay it, might not. My suspicion is when we look at any particular record (and my claim was an 'average' or statistical claim) the results won't be necessarily predictable. The primary factor will be if the particular local agency already has access worked out as a matter of course. If not then it will be delayed as it goes to the state police or perhaps a different community police force. They will have their own priorities.... The value of video as a security agent is the fact that visual identification has become routine. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote:
What is your EVIDENCE that right now, today, in the USA, this technology is on-line, and in use such that your claim that someone who buys a money order can be identified in three days. No coulda, woulda, shoulda, but documentation that supports this fanciful claim.
To which Jim replied [emphasis, mine]:
What was that sporting event again?... I'd VENTURE...The technology exists. Consider the police in LONDON...Consider ...Photo identification and management is a primary GOAL in every one of them...the system is here and with sufficient motivation the priority to apply COULD arranged...My SUSPICION is...The primary factor WILL be IF the particular local...
Hmm, lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda, but NO citations, NO documentation, NO evidence. Res ipsa loquitur. Jim, come up with some evidence and we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm just going to let you continue to make a damned fool of yourself without further comment. S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why cant it be changed by Constitutional amendment since its the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ /------\ -======-------------||---:> < Ha ha! | (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \------/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:30:35PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
I haven't seen a MO vendor that was video recorded in years. It wouldn't surprise me if the MO companies didn't require it. I don't intend to spend my time researching it. Let us know if you find one. I bet when all of us start hitting it they'll figure something is up :)
Jim may actually have half a point. But I suspect that 711 tapes aren't kept for years, and money orders often last *quite* a while. -Declan
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Jim may actually have half a point. But I suspect that 711 tapes aren't kept for years, and money orders often last *quite* a while.
Generaly they keep a tape for a week to a month or so. Most companies see this sort of stuff as 'mission critical'. Some place like 7-11 may send them off to a central site for storage up to a year. Remember the tapes are critical evidence for INTERNAL issues as well. They are prime evidence of theft, etc. If it's one of these big chain stores they feed the 5-10 fps signal out their VSAT for off-site storage and that can be kept for up to a year. MO's have a time limit. the Travellers Express I have in hand is 1 year (3 years in CA). You can't get one for more than about $400 anymore, and any single site can't do you more than like $2000 in any 24 hour period. The thesis that you're going to buy MO's and then delay using them is probably effective if you are aware of the MO issuers security policies. If not then you're better off using them as fast as possible. Of course if you need this sort of protection you probably shouldn't buy them from your city and probably shouldn't mail them from either of these two cities. Now not only is there a MO trail, but a correlated travel trail as well. Of course we'll pay for everything with cash and sign nothing. That will help a lot, though we won't be flying, renting a car, or sleeping in hotels. We should also do it in such a way that the day or two we're out catting about nobody misses us. So work won't need us and family and friends won't miss us either. How often can you pull that off before somebody starts getting curios? Traffic Analysis is a bitch. Evidence everywhere. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:53:03PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
Jim: You really don't like to let facts to get in the way of your brilliance, do you?
Check: https://www.anonymizer.com/signup/sign_up.shtml. To quote:
Yep, Lance has been far better than most in accepting cash/money order/etc. I mentioned this as recently as the last few weeks in an article. Perhaps Jim might want to read articles instead of forwarding them. I may be meeting with the Safeweb folks tomorrow. Anythin I should ask them? -Declan
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Ray Dillinger -
Sandy Sandfort -
Sunder -
Trei, Peter