C I A non-profit venture capital company

[Peter Fairbrother]

> David Howe at DHowe@Hawkswing.demon.co.uk wrote:

>> 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.
> I think you have missed a feature here - Triangle Boy is the safeweb variant
> that the CIA are supposed to be buying into. It is a distributed, voluntary
> system, so wouldn't have a easily identifiable set of server IPs to filter
> for.

From SafeWeb's site:

1) "Corporations, governments, and other entities have begun to block access
to SafeWeb."

2) "Users who are currently blocked from directly accessing SafeWeb (or any
other site) will be able to access it indirectly through any other computer
running Triangle Boy."  - but no details.

I don't know much about Triangle Boy but I don't think it's a lot harder to
filter Triangle Boy-using servers than SafeWeb ones - they are, I assume,
quite easy to identify by trying to use Triangle Boy on them.

Unless users have to go through a SafeWeb site and identify themselves I
can't see any way of denying requests for use of Triangle Boy and thus
preventing identification of servers that use it. Also I can't see many
people wanting to use Triangle Boy on their servers if they are going to be
blocked. There may be more to it of course... or it might be even easier
than that to filter.