C I A non-profit venture capital company

[Peter Fairbrother]

That's all very well, but it's a bit stupid using an anonymizer, ?controlled
by the CIA, which can log your ip and all your traffic. These are the
secrets you want to protect with an anonymizer.

But not in this case from the CIA, which has computers and storage, as well
as a rather unreliable and unsavoury reputation.

I suspect SafeWeb will become totally CIA, that there will be no cover
traffic to speak of, and that anything to/from SafeWeb servers will
automatically be assumed to be CIA.

One more (default) entry for the firewall. Ho hum.

Peter 


> John Young at jya@pipeline.com wrote:

> Bear in mind that there's a pretty good market for TLA-blessed
> products in all countries. In the US few manufacturers would
> not be eager to do what SafeWeb has done, and many, if not
> most, are already doing so.
> 
> That just means that other nations' producers are presented
> with opportunities to market antidote snakeoils.
> 
> I don't know of any anonymizer, repeat any, that provide
> untraceable anonymity. As with compsec in general. The
> issue is how much do you want short of perfection and
> are willing to expend resources for. For example, the only
> trustworthy way to use the Internet is to not use it at all.
> Same with computers, networked or standalone. If you
> cannot do without either you have an unsolvable security
> and privacy problem no matter what digital apologists/
> advocates and security marketers claim.
> 
> Still, it is pleasant to be offered illusory security and
> privacy. CIA enjoys that as with the rest of us.
> 
> 
>