Why cryptome sold web logs to their paying customers?

[Mirimir]

On 10/11/2015 07:49 PM, Travis Biehn wrote:
> I'd rather have what you call 'lazy' over nothing.

Look, I mean no disrespect to Cryptome. But I do think that there ought
to be a warning for users to protect themselves, if they don't want
their access logged by everyone and their little yellow dog.

> The ideal is all distribution modes available: "Keep the info off the dark
> web, off the deep web and in the search indexes."
> 
> Cryptome shows up on google searches. Your onion does not.

Well, Cryptome has been around for about 20 years, so hey ;)

But Google is indexing it. And it shows up well enough in relevant
searches. But I haven't been promoting it very much.

> -Travis
> 
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/11/2015 06:20 PM, Travis Biehn wrote:
>>> A billboard doesn't need much 'security.' *shrug*
>>
>> Well, there are the access logs ;)
>>
>> It ought to be an onion service, no? No sure bet, of course, but better
>> than nothing. In my opinion.
>>
>> Putting it all on users is awfully lazy, I think.
>>
>>> Travis
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 8:18 PM John Young <jya at pipeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would not have expected Cryptome to be on shared hosting ;) But yes,
>>>>> that would explain it.
>>>>
>>>> Shared is cheap, so are we. Shared is vuln, so are we. So are the others
>>>> despite credentials and billion-dollar armaments and above all else
>>>> secrecy and shallow oversight. That explains it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
>