The following message by Lance Cottrell responding to John Young's
accusations was sent to the cypherpunks list but apparently never
appeared here.
========================================================================
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:15:16 -0800
To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Digital Bearer Settlement List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Lance M. Cottrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anonymizing Scam
Given how widely know my email address is, I am saddened that people
would post this kind of unsubstantiated rumor without any attempt to
check on the validity.
Anonymizer has always offered its services to all comers. This has
always included law enforcement. They have used our services to keep
an eye on certain websites for many years, without tipping them off
to the focus of their interests. Seeing "fbi.gov" in the log files is
a bit of a giveaway. They have no special access to our systems, and
no ability to monitor our users.
Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is
absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have
earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of
conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs
for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to
take.
-Lance Cottrell
At 5:34 PM -0500 11/23/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>
>Status: U
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:02:10 -0800
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Anonymizing Scam
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell.
>Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs?
>Worse, has there ever been?
>
>-----
>
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html
>
>One company that is still making money off privacy is
>Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers
>anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The
>company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance
>Cottrell.
>
>"We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most
>people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company,
>spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where
>they're going."
>
>Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to
>market its service to corporations, including law and investigation
>firms, and the U.S. government, he said.
>
>"Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially
>since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye
>on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring.
>
>-----
>
>The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its
>privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to
>continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always
>the need for money, the Judas rationale.
>
>Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or
>never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the
>service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect.
>
>Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected
>against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS,
>like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to
>MD.
>
>What does this say about commercial anonymizing services,
>and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot
>AES?
>
>--- end forwarded text
>
>
>--
>-----------------
>R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
>44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
>"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
>[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
>experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
--
Lance M. Cottrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anonymizer, Inc. President
Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188
www.Anonymizer.com
