Anonymizer employees need killing

[bgt]

On Mar 26, 2004, at 9:13, petard wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:32:43AM -0500, An Metet wrote:
>>> From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/36485.html :
>>
>> "To download the online picture, he used the Anonymizer.com service,
>> believing the companys privacy policy would protect him. Not so. Dutch
>
> The article got it wrong. He used Surfola. They've since corrected it.

Of course, anyone trusting their lives & liberty to these commercial ip 
addx
obfuscators are incredibly stupid anyway.  Anonymizer states plainly 
that
they store usage logs "usually for 48 hours" and will use them to combat
spam or other "abuses of netiquette".  Even if they didn't state it, 
how can you
stake your life on them not doing so?

Any company that /can/ comply with a court order to reveal your 
identity,
probably won't need a court order to be convinced to do so.

  Just as a point of curiosity (because I think it's irrelevant, for the 
reason
above),  An Metet, how are you sure there was no subpoena or court order
involved?

--bgt