Anonymizing Scam

[Nomen Nescio]

John Young writes:
> Criticism of anonymizers and remailers and this list is a healthy
> as criticizing any reputable, and disreputable, private or publice
> means of communication.
>
> Fending off criticism by saying past performance and reputation
> deserves trust is a hoot and is also a hackneyed reply of someone
> who is concealing betrayal, or to put it more politely, has not
> yet learned how to earn trust continuously rather than bank it
> for unearned profit.

These are good points, but the mystery is why you don't apply them to
yourself.  Why not challenge your own reputation and trustworthiness?
You are no better than Lance Cottrell, are you?  You serve law enforcement
agencies as well as private individuals.  You are in much the same
position as Lance to learn about sensitive browsing habits which would
be of interest to the government.  You are no more deserving of trust
than he or anyone else.

Rather than make accusations about other people, why not eliminate the
middleman and make accusations about yourself?  End your hypocrisy.  Say,
"I may be sucking up to law enforcement agencies.  I may be recording
people's browsing habits and supplying them to interested parties,
with appropriate compensation.  I am not deserving of trust, in fact I
may be concealing betrayal.  Nothing I have done in the past should be
interpreted in any way to assume that I will not change in the future
and begin selling out my friends and those who rely on me."

You believe that this is the attitude we should take towards you, don't
you?  Why not come forward and say it.  If you don't think we should
trust you, say so.  If you don't think you deserve our trust, admit it.
You don't need to search out other people's flaws when your own are so
much closer at hand.