• nymph.paranoici.org

    From nobody@nobody@yamn.paranoici.org to comp.misc on Sat Jul 19 18:25:26 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc


    just curious . . .

    (using Tor Browser 14.5.4)
    http://nymph.paranoici.org/
    PARANOIA REMAILER homepage
    Main
    HowTo
    Status
    Nym Server
    What is
    An anonymous remailer is essentially a service to hide one's identity when >sending messages by e-mail.
    Why should you want to hide your identity?
    Because the Internet looks increasingly like a big square full of CCTVs where it
    is impossible to move without being monitored.
    Despite the big hype about privacy and the right to privacy, we think that this
    is just a camouflage to disguise the fact that in the Web political liberties are
    decreasing, and institutions are pushing towards this so that privacy does not
    belong to individuals anymore and becomes a privilege bestowed by the powerful
    within well-defined limits, in order to ensure a "fair" control over every >citizen and her activities.
    No matter how loud people can bark about control of information being necessary
    in order to keep order, though, we believe that this control is not only >unnecessary and useless in this sense, but that freedom of communication (because
    it only comes down to this) is every induvidual's fundamental right, and that >restraining it is a way to forbid any critical voice and any moral or ideological
    dissent.
    Take a loot at this article from Bruce Schneier: The eternal value of privacy.
    http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886 *see quoted link below
    Articolo sul valore della privacy di Bruce Schneier: Il valore eterno della >privacy
    That's why we want to offer this tool -- in order to claim the need/right to >anonymity, in order to oppose the odious attitude according to which if you're
    trying to hide it means that you have something to hide, in order to favour the
    spreading of "secure" anonymity systems, because we don't want to have >"anonymous" mailboxes with Hotmail, because those mailboxes have nothing >anonymous, and even if you register with false data it can always be traced back
    to your real identity. For a world net of anonymous remailers exists already, and
    the only secure way of using these tools is by using them in a chain, so it is
    crucial to have as many rings possible in every single chain, because the more
    people use these tools, the more difficult it is to shut them down.
    Per una descrizione degli anonymous remailer in italiano leggetevi questo pdf:
    introduzione ai remailers
    We have a type II mixmaster remailer, which accepts messages in bot cypherpunk
    (type I) and mixmaster (type II) format.
    If you use the cypherpunk format, remember that this remailer only accepts >messages encrypted with its public key.
    If you wish to receive the remailer keys, send a message to >mixmaster@remailer.paranoici.org
    with the subject "remailer-key".
    If you wish to see the usage stats, send a message to >mixmaster@remailer.paranoici.org
    with the subject "remailer-stats"
    If you don't want to receive messages from this remailer, send a message to >mixmaster@remailer.paranoici.org
    entering in the subject: DESTINATION-BLOCK
    If you want to contact remailer admin, write to: remailer- >admin@remailer.paranoici.org
    Links
    autistici.org
    crypto software (obsolete)
    Guides
    remailer FAQ
    Introduzione ai remailers
    remailer intro
    APAS FAQ
    [end quoted plain text]

    *quoted link . . .

    (using Tor Browser 14.5.4) https://web.archive.org/web/20080817071906/wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886
    The Eternal Value of Privacy
    Bruce Schneier Email 05.18.06
    The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID >checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures
    -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
    Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to
    watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep >changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my >information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that
    they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy
    is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition
    with dignity and respect.
    Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the >watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
    Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said,
    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I >would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and
    you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is >important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep,
    to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be
    at the time.
    Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing
    wrong at the time of surveillance.
    We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not >deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or
    conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and
    write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.
    A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the >framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as
    an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their
    cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all
    was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You
    watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's
    intrinsic to the concept of liberty.
    For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of >correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become
    children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or
    in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to >implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private
    and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is >observable and recordable.
    How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half >years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone
    conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a
    conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or
    Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of
    context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed,
    and our words are subtly altered.
    This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is
    life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our >future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. >Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real
    choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of >foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is
    still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus >privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state.
    And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide. >- - -
    Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of >Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. You can >contact him through his website.
    [end quoted plain text]

    i've never used nyms (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/privacy/anon-server/faq/use/part7),
    but "nymph.paranoici.org" is included in sec3's current "complete list of what is
    allowed through the mail relay", so nyms must still be popular with its anonymous
    remailer users (see omnimix tutorial https://www.danner-net.de/omom/tutornym.htm)

    but for posting articles (whether clear text or encrypted) into the public domain,
    usenet newsgroups are the only public forum available via the internet where this
    is still possible, and using anonymous remailers for this purpose is probably the
    easiest way to remain anonymous (i.e., in the worldly, temporal, litigious "avoid
    not evade" sense of incurring liability), and of course, no one was ever actually
    "anonymous" in the natural sense (i.e. in the galactic balance, every erratum...)

    plain text usenet newsgroups are the last vestige of uncensored free speech (i.e.
    less subject to preemptive exclusion or subsequent deletion from public scrutiny)
    thus is why every active newsgroup has been systematically targeted by troll farm
    "demoralization warfare" propaganda obviously intended to discourage unauthorized
    public expression in any form, and their tactics are militarized and nothing less

    somehow, usenet has withstood their global supremacy, and by now most subscribers
    and contributors have learned to use newsreaders with scoring/filters to minimize
    their adversity to this user's network, and to avoid their pseudonymity snake oil


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Retrograde@fungus@amongus.com.invalid to comp.misc on Sat Jul 19 18:27:30 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 18:25:26 +0000
    D <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:
    plain text usenet newsgroups are the last vestige of uncensored free speech (i.e.
    less subject to preemptive exclusion or subsequent deletion from public scrutiny)
    thus is why every active newsgroup has been systematically targeted by troll farm
    "demoralization warfare" propaganda obviously intended to discourage unauthorized
    public expression in any form, and their tactics are militarized and nothing less

    I reject the idea trolls are any form of organized demoralization
    warfare force organized for any reason at all. Instead I posit: trolls
    are a numerous but disorganized number of antisocial morons who get
    pleasure from being asshats.

    For example, an individual trying relentlessly to turn any thread at
    all into a full-throated paean of messianic fervor for a certain
    orange-skinned elected official, far and beyond any normal level of
    admiration and clearly intended simply for the pleasure of roiling up
    an audience of individuals that otherwise dislike the guy.

    If that rings any bells at all, we miss you and your posts over at
    m.n.i.d, buddy.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2