Xerobank questions ?

I would be interested in seeing such reports.

Yes, “dude,” I am well aware of the affiliation with Abraxis.

My point, however, was simply that Anonymizer is the most stable and long-lasting company in the anonymity business. Clearly, they must be doing something right to succeed when others have failed.

Which specific anonymity services do you have in mind that “support that reality rather than refute it with hollow arguments regarding international jurisdictions”?

 

Yes, they got CIA funding

Avoiding NSA/CIA/FBI snooping is one of my primary reasons for using anonymous VPNs. I really can't imagine using a CIA-related service. And YMMV.

I trust the libertarians/minarchists/anarchists more than TPTB

 

Yes, I agree -- the integrity of Lance Cottrell is generally well regarded.

Coste began in 1999, whereas Anonymizer started before that time (1994/1995) -- correct?

Interesting. I never saw any evidence that XeroBank added staff over the years.

 

So....all we hear about is Cotse, Cotse, Cotse and earlier it was about hanging out in Usenet this and that....we all know Steve Gielda is a longtime Usenet lover and is the owner/operator of Cotse (with volunteers!). So, you wanna just be on the up and up? As many problems as I have with the Xerobank way of doing business, at least Topletz had the guts to be upfront about who he is and his relationship with the company.

If what you wrote about above in the quote box is true, it's pretty obvious.

 

Perhaps they're not in it for the money Whoever "they" are.

 

He works for the CIA! You know, the CIA that tortures people. Is that who you want looking over your shoulder?

 

You're late to the game on this. Actually, you're talking about Kyle who also said on this board that he "wouldn't trust" Torrify/XeroBank. He ended up going to work for Steve at XB.

You stated flat out you've been in the privacy business since the 90's, etc. Your description sounded just like Steve at Cotse -- the same service you rave about every other post. Are you affiliated with Cotse - or was all that description of yourself a coincidence?

 

What was “the precursor to Cotse”?

The Cotse website claims the company started in 1999 (not 1990) -- see here.

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the numerous articulate and vocal defenses of privacy made by Lance Cottrell (see here). Clearly, he is a long-standing advocate for protecting privacy.

I don’t remember that thread/post. Can you please post a link?

 

PooseyII, my reading of history is that “Cotse” as a website existed in 1991, but Cotse as an anonymity service did not exist until 1999. Thus, Anonymizer does appear to predate Cotse by several years for protecing individuals' privacy. Am I missing something?

 

Here is the post in question https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1019580&postcount=18

To put it into context, you have to read the thread.

Here are all of user (goldenone) posts. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/search.php?do=finduser&u=68592 Turns out it is Kyle of JanusVM (where you been poosey? It's been known for a long time he's been developing XB products) ends up working for Steve.

 

Thank you, LockBox, for posting the link.

When Goldenone (Kyle) says “I wouldn't trust them,” it isn’t clear to me if he is referring to Metropipe or to XeroBank, unfortunately -- and, we may never know. The preceding post by SteveTX in that thread is mostly about Metropipe, and so it is very possible that Metropipe is the intended reference to the pronoun.

 

I've been familiar with Lance Cottrell's work on privacy since the mid 1990s. I followed the development of Anonymizer.com through his posts on cypherpunks etc. I used his service for years. And then I read that his firm had been acquired by Abraxis, and hosed the machine I'd been using. Although I respect whatever choices he's made, and who he's chosen to work with, I object strongly to the marketing of Anonymizer.com without full disclosure of its CIA connection. That's just wrong, IMHO.

 

Well, there are no "rules". Although this may seem weird coming from some anonymous poster, honesty is one of my core values. What I write online as hierophant honestly represents that aspect of who I am. And I expect the same of those with whom I associate and/or do business. It's a matter of trust.

Also, I'd be much less concerned if Anonymizer.com had "merely" taken on the CIA as a client. XeroBank may have clients whose interests are at odds with mine. However, acquisition and joint management are readily distinguishable from that, yes?

Anyway, thanks for the civil discussion.

 

You seem to be suggesting that not only is the CIA a client of Anonymizer through the Abraxas connection, but -- more significantly -- that the CIA in part manages Anonymizer. That’s a bold assertion. Why do you believe this to be true?

P.S.: Also, note that the CIA is legally prohibited from engaging in any "domestic police function."

 

The CIA is a law unto itself, always has been, and in Reality is unaccountable to "we the people" who pay them Billions of $ every year coverly and overtly, congress etc, and even the President

They don't let little things like legality get in the way

 

1. Do you know of any anonymity service that publically discloses the names of its clients in whole or in part?
2. If all other anonymity services purposely prohibit the disclosure of the identity of their customers, then why would you expect otherwise from Anonymizer?
3. If Anonymizer were to confirm that the CIA is a client, wouldn’t you be disappointed in the company’s choice to publically name one of its customers?

 

It appears that I have more faith in the US justice system than yourself. I believe that any illegal activity conducted by the CIA would be inadmissible as evidence in a court, based upon my layman’s knowledge of the law.

 

Like beauty, the interpretation resides in the eye of the beholder.

 

I wish I could have that trust. Just Google "Operation CHAOS"...and don't forget the Church Committee and all the front groups they uncovered within our borders that were organized, financed and run by the Central Intelligence Agency. More recently, the CIA has been accused of similar actions since 9/11.

 

Abraxis bought Anonymizer. Abraxis is a "CIA company", staffed by "ex"-CIA people and (arguably) covert CIA people. CIA use of such "companies" to disguise its activities and avoid legalities is well-known.

You're joking, right?

 

I vaguely recall a couple court-ordered disclosures. And then there was the e-gold mess, if you consider that "anonymity".

I'm not expecting disclosure of clients, but rather of ownership -- especially when folks like the CIA are involved.

I do not approve of disclosing clients, under any circumstances.

 

There might not be a "court", and it might not be in the USA.

And this isn't just about privacy nuts like me. The CIA may be using dissidents in Iran, China or wherever to further its goals -- and putting them at increased risk in the process.

 

It seems that a majority of at least the active users are reaching this decision.
The tragedy for Xb, is that a customer exodus could still be avoidable if only Xb were to communicate, assure stability and re-establish some credibility. Clocks ticking though..

 

Why do you think XeroBank cares whether individual subscribers cancel or not? For one thing, it's pretty clear that the money involved is negligible, right?

IMHO, XeroBank was not a business venture, but rather an experiment (perhaps failed) in teaching people how to be free. It appears that gamma/dark.ai is the next one. Me, I just want strong anonymity, and I'll miss XeroBank if it stops working.

 

@ hierophant

Hi,

Can you provide more info on gamma/dark.ai in here - https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=281480

I can't seem to find much about it ? And what's with the no HTTPS ?

TIA