|
Posted by Nomen Nescio on December 23, 2008, 8:00 am
Please log in for more thread options
John Navas wrote:
> >Naval, you called these guys "solid", are you shilling for them? Or was
> >it the fancy green website that got you all hot n sweaty over their
> >"solidness". Hell, frozen turds are solid, should we pay frozen turds to
> >"anonymize" us?
>
> 3 strikes, and you're out! Into the twit filter you go.
>
You can always tell the shills, they get so damned upset when their
"recommendation" is challenged. Seriously, "into the twit filter", did
you hear the trumpets of self-importance when you typed that?
Personally, I they were all valid points. Normally a claim of "No Logs"
is enough alone to scream snake oil, but combined with the rest and
there is no excuse at all for recommending either of those services,
that was some very basic due dilly and it glaringly failed. So you are
definitely either a shill or clueless and neither should be recommending
pay services in here.
|
|
Posted by Ari on December 23, 2008, 2:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:00:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>>>Naval, you called these guys "solid", are you shilling for them? Or was
>>>it the fancy green website that got you all hot n sweaty over their
>>>"solidness". Hell, frozen turds are solid, should we pay frozen turds to
>>>"anonymize" us?
>>
>> 3 strikes, and you're out! Into the twit filter you go.
>>
>
> You can always tell the shills, they get so damned upset when their
> "recommendation" is challenged. Seriously, "into the twit filter", did
> you hear the trumpets of self-importance when you typed that?
lol
> Personally, I they were all valid points. Normally a claim of "No Logs"
> is enough alone to scream snake oil, but combined with the rest and
> there is no excuse at all for recommending either of those services,
> that was some very basic due dilly and it glaringly failed. So you are
> definitely either a shill or clueless and neither should be recommending
> pay services in here.
Obviously you missed the points where Naval claimed they were "solid".
Obviously. lol
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3
|
|
Posted by Nomen Nescio on December 23, 2008, 7:00 am
Please log in for more thread options John Navas wrote:
> * Anonymizer <http://www.anonymizer.com/>
> * GoTrusted <http://www.gotrusted.com/>
> Both are solid, and while in the USA, that shouldn't be a concern unless
> you're going to attract the attention of law enforcement.
>
> For a technical overview, see
> <https://www.anonymousspeech.com/anonymous_surfing.aspx>
>
> Other options:
> <(www.idzap.com>
> <http://anonymous-surfing-reviews.qarchive.org/>
>
None of those would be high on my list of recommended places. Hell,
Anonymizer has taken over 1 mil in government money already, that money
has strings. But regardless as most of us don't need to hide from the
government, the privacy game is a game of features, you want the most
bang for your buck and those places are definitely not it. Overpriced
and overhyped.
Comparison shop, it makes all the difference. Stay away from red flags
like "No logging", that's a sign of snake oil, and instead do a feature
by feature comparison and shop for what best fits your needs. You can
find much better deals. Hell, for my needs I really scored, I moved a
bunch of my regular domains to Cotse because they offer me even more
than my full serviced web host did at less of a price, and Cotse is a
well reviewed privacy service to boot so I also get my proxies and such.
Shop around.
|
|
Posted by Ari on December 23, 2008, 3:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:00:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> * Anonymizer <http://www.anonymizer.com/>
>> * GoTrusted <http://www.gotrusted.com/>
>> Both are solid, and while in the USA, that shouldn't be a concern unless
>> you're going to attract the attention of law enforcement.
>>
>> For a technical overview, see
>> <https://www.anonymousspeech.com/anonymous_surfing.aspx>
>>
>> Other options:
>> <(www.idzap.com>
>> <http://anonymous-surfing-reviews.qarchive.org/>
>>
>
> None of those would be high on my list of recommended places. Hell,
> Anonymizer has taken over 1 mil in government money already, that money
> has strings. But regardless as most of us don't need to hide from the
> government, the privacy game is a game of features, you want the most
> bang for your buck and those places are definitely not it. Overpriced
> and overhyped.
>
> Comparison shop, it makes all the difference. Stay away from red flags
> like "No logging", that's a sign of snake oil, and instead do a feature
> by feature comparison and shop for what best fits your needs. You can
> find much better deals. Hell, for my needs I really scored, I moved a
> bunch of my regular domains to Cotse because they offer me even more
> than my full serviced web host did at less of a price, and Cotse is a
> well reviewed privacy service to boot so I also get my proxies and such.
> Shop around.
Long a fan of Cotse, a regular of /steve from the days when he ran it
out of his house and it was free. is there a better email service value
for the money? I doubt it.
--
Meet Ari!
http://tr.im/1fa3
|
|
Posted by Nomen Nescio on December 24, 2008, 1:30 am
Please log in for more thread options Ari wrote:
> Long a fan of Cotse, a regular of /steve from the days when he ran it
> out of his house and it was free. is there a better email service value
> for the money? I doubt it.
>
I don't know who "/steve" is, but I'm relatively new to Cotse. I signed
up because a friend recommended it and so far am amazed at how much I
get for the money. I'd say they wouldn't be open for business long but
they have to be doing something right because my buddy has been a
subscriber for a long time now. They currently handle hosting and
e-mail (the mail is awesome) for four domains for me. I'm posting this
using their mixmaster interface and I surf using one of their SSH
servers (it's pretty fast too). All in all, so far so good and at a
fraction of what it used to cost me.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 22, 2008, 1:10 am |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 22, 2008, 8:42 pm |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 22, 2008, 9:46 pm |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 23, 2008, 3:27 am |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 23, 2008, 3:33 am |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 23, 2008, 3:38 am |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 23, 2008, 12:10 pm |
| Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows | December 22, 2008, 9:25 pm |
| Automatic File Translation Utility for Windows-based Mobile Devices | May 5, 2010, 3:59 am |
| Re: Freeware to put "iPod touch" into disk storage mode on Windows PC? | January 6, 2008, 12:16 am |
| about randomizer/scambler in Layer1 | May 31, 2006, 11:55 am |
| automatic fallback | January 29, 2005, 6:46 am |
| Automatic configuration | November 24, 2005, 2:05 pm |
| Looking for AP with POE and Automatic Restart Capability | August 30, 2006, 6:45 am |
| Help with Netgear Router (Says Automatic) | June 20, 2007, 9:05 am |
Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows
Yahoo!
Google
Windows Live
del.icio.us
digg
Netscape
> >it the fancy green website that got you all hot n sweaty over their
> >"solidness". Hell, frozen turds are solid, should we pay frozen turds to
> >"anonymize" us?
>
> 3 strikes, and you're out! Into the twit filter you go.
>