Re: WWW proxies?

["Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 5 May 1996, Lucky Green wrote:

> Of course these sites are in an ideal position to log their user's every
> move. With so many users making all their http requests through a single
> site, the commercial value of the information that could be gained by
> logging traffic at the site is tremendous.
> 
> Only when a network of anonymizing sites is connected through something
> like PipeNet and the users are either PipeNet nodes themselves, or at least
> randomly use various PipeNet nodes for their http connections, does the
> security of the user increase.
> 
> With only one hop, IMHO, the potential risk outweighs the potential
> benefit. I'd advise against using such single-hop http anonymizers. YMMV.

The same is also true for cpunk and penet-style remailers that do not use
encryption.  You always have to trust remailer operators regardless of whether
encryption is used or not.  The situation will become much better when there
is some way to chain proxies and encrypt to each individual proxy.  If the
operator of a proxy is more trustworthy than the operators of any sites you
visit using the proxy, then you have nothing to lose.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xf9b22ba5
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | bd24d08e3cbb53472054fa56002258d5
"The concept of normalcy is just a conspiracy of the majority" -me


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMYz1ZLZc+sv5siulAQEgXgQAhuCV9a++OqPl/eyjlF2oPusD8284meQw
tnoBp5sNZBISxjeqS1IXSyJjXmkFavwGTBzvKIoLVEirgU+wMtvpLXHQQxTsy9GA
vjRE2Zu11U0dhiOhHKCQ6mLIv54Rxm6lm7o7zgBvj/cMEJ5FdCoLmmayqPAfBmbg
XfTuNc+VhHM=
=Ru/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----