Chilly8 wrote in his original post:

> I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
> people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
....
> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
....
> I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
> special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
> he/she was up to.

Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely
monitored they might not feel so special. Of course, I'm merely assuming
that your proxy is advertised as such but, as the rest of this thread
seems to imply your lack of cluefulness in general in this discussion,
don't you find it a bit ironic that you're the one raising the indignant
moralist flag in this situation?

As for the matter of company bandwidth usage, employers are well within
their rights to limit staff use of company resources whether it be using
the postage meter for personal mail, long distance calls to grandma, or
printing your pictures of your ass on the color printer. The same goes for
bandwidth consumption. So if your network admin wishes to restrict
peer-to-peer traffic, flash or ActiveX controls, streaming audio/video, or
any manner of site filtering/blocking, that's their right to do so as they
are paying for the bandwidth and for the IT staff that maintains the
network and cleans the cruft out of your bot net virus infected PC that
wouldn't need scrubbing if you hadn't been looking at pictures of wedding
porn in the first place.

-Gary

In article <73e7.479398b4.b15c9@efn.org>, garyd@efn.org.spamsux says...
> Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
> the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely
> monitored they might not feel so special.

See, you've exposed him when we were just going to let him hang himself
in his own statements....

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Gary" wrote in message
news:73e7.479398b4.b15c9@efn.org...
> Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
>
>> I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
>> people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
> ...
>> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
> ...
>> I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
>> special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
>> he/she was up to.
>
> Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
> the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely

Actually, I am not normally able to monitor what goes on. THAT
proxy is a filtered proxy for my network, not meant for public
consumption. The script kiddies that were scanning my site
found it and posted it to the various public proxy sites. It turns
out that some filtering proxies have a GAPING security hole
that allows anyone from around the world to surf through the
proxy,

The proxy that IS meant for public consumptoin, the Tor entry
proxy, I could not monitor that if I wanted to, which is
why I now advocate people use the Tor proxy, when coming
from work, because you merely go from machine to another
random machine on the Onion Router network. By using
the Tor proxy, instead of the filtering proxy, which was
found and posted, your activities CANNOT BE
MONITORED, either by me, OR by your emplyer.

The Tor proxy is there to allow people to use Tor,
without having to install the software, very handy
for people on school or work computers that are
locked down against installation of new software.

> As for the matter of company bandwidth usage, employers are well within
> their rights to limit staff use of company resources whether it be using
> the postage meter for personal mail, long distance calls to grandma, or
> printing your pictures of your ass on the color printer.

There was a radio station in the America some years
ago that had a contest for some hard-to-get concert
tickets, of "Fax us a picture of your butt", where people
had to take a picture of their backside on the company
copy machine, and then fax that to the radio station,
where they would decide who had the best backside.
The winner got tickets to a New Kids On The Block
concert, which was one of the hottest tickets anywhere,
at that time.

This morning DJ crew was one of the zaniest DJs
ever on morning radio in America, and that was a
rather zany contest the did.

X-No-Archive: Yes


On Jan 20, 10:53*am, Gary wrote:
> Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
>
>
>
> > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
> > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
> ...
> > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding. *
> ...
> > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
> > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
> > he/she was up to.
>
> Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that

Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
of what they are doing are GONE, becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
an electron microscope is going to recover the data.

In article <998a1d33-bc1b-4f1f-a4da-
0bfed47553cc@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> On Jan 20, 10:53*am, Gary wrote:
> > Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
> > > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
> > ...
> > > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> > > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> > > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding. *
> > ...
> > > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
> > > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
> > > he/she was up to.
> >
> > Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> > on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
>
> Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
> them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
> of what they are doing are GONE, becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
> repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
> each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
> an electron microscope is going to recover the data.

And there is no proof of that. You still show that you are UNETHICAL AND
DISHONEST.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8 wrote:


> Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
> them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
> of what they are doing are GONE,


Most likely they're not.

> becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
> repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
> each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
> an electron microscope is going to recover the data.


The best, overly aggressive stream generation scheme won't help anything
against a horribly bad implementation. Evidence Eliminator is such one.

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.221819459090d038989a17@Adfree.usenet.com. ..



>And there is no proof of that. You still show that you are UNETHICAL AND
>DISHONEST.

I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass, that
is
equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for destruction
of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
a total of 63 times.

I have a program that can start EE as a service and automatically run
the disk scrub once a day, and then re-boot the server.

Chilly8 wrote:


> I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
> 3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass, that
> is equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for destruction
> of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
> unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
> a total of 63 times.


I already told that this is very unlikely since EE is a pile of shot doing
it's job improperly (which is actually not so unexpected).

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." wrote in message
news:619aliF1ubcc6U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
>> 3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass,
>> that is equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for
>> destruction
>> of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
>> unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
>> a total of 63 times.
>
>
> I already told that this is very unlikely since EE is a pile of shot doing
> it's job improperly (which is actually not so unexpected).

Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
the data.

There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".

Chilly8 wrote:


> Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
> one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
> to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
> that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
> the data.


They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job properly.


> There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
> in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
> recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
> slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".

I'd say they were just unlucky or didn't try properly, since it's actually
quite trivial to create situations where EE fails. Maybe you should take a
look at the description of "SDelete"
to get a
clue what details you have to take care of, and EE doesn't.

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." wrote in message
news:61b3ppF1u0g36U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
>> one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
>> to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
>> that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
>> the data.
>
>
> They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job
> properly.
>
>
>> There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
>> in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
>> recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
>> slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".
>
> I'd say they were just unlucky or didn't try properly, since it's actually
> quite trivial to create situations where EE fails. Maybe you should take a
> look at the description of "SDelete"
> to get a
> clue what details you have to take care of, and EE doesn't.

Well, when it comes to disk wiping software, I would tell people
to find something other than EE, because of the fact that in the
newer versions, they have "product activation",. which ties one
copy of the program to one machine, which I consider to be
highway robbery. That is the only reason I have not upgraded
EE in quite a while, and will almost certainly go to one of their
comptitors, such as Evidence Blaster, the next time I need to
upgrade.

Chilly8 wrote:

> and will almost certainly go to one of their
> comptitors, such as Evidence Blaster, the next time I need to
> upgrade.


As if this program would be any less incompetent...

X-No-Archive: Yes


Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
Eliminator? Think again?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Custom...from_0211.html


Since I often travel to, or through the USA, I scrub my disk in TWO
steps. First, I have a "clean" disk image made with Norton Ghost. I
Ghost my machine with that. Then I use Evdience Eliminator to clean up
anything that Ghost would miss. If your travel takes you to, or
through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.
Ghosting the machine, followed by a session of EE, or any other
programme like it, will ensure that Customs agents in America, as well
as Australia and Canada (where they are also examining computers now)
will not be able to recover it. If you travel internationally, you
NEED some kind of disk wiping program, especially before entering
America.

In article @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
> Eliminator? Think again?

No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.

All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
tracks.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.22217b3410dc70a2989a44@Adfree.usenet.com. ..
> In article > @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
>> Eliminator? Think again?
>
> No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.
>
> All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
> tracks.

Read the article, Customs can copy ANYTHING from your
computer, even confidential company information. With all
kinds of privacy laws, especially if any part of your business
is in the EU, you could run afoul of EU laws, for what U.S.
Customs copies off your hard drive. And it could cause
problems with privacy laws in other countries. To keep your
company information confidential, EE, or a programme like
it is a MUST for those who travel internationally, especially
to, or thorugh, the United States. This way they cannot get
any temporary files you might generate while accessing your
company network remotely. If you access your company
network remotely, EE, or a program like it, is a MUST,
so that if your computer is ever lost, seized, stolen, etc, etc,
your confidential company data will STAY that way.

Chilly8 wrote:

> If your travel takes you to, or
> through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
> empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
> created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.


Well, didn't I already tell you that Evidence Eliminator is an unsuitable
tool for such a purpose? It will leave traces in file slack, MFT, journaling
log, USN journals, ...

In message <61qioiF20jtgaU1@mid.dfncis.de> "Sebastian G."
wrote:

>Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> If your travel takes you to, or
>> through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
>> empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
>> created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.
>
>
>Well, didn't I already tell you that Evidence Eliminator is an unsuitable
>tool for such a purpose? It will leave traces in file slack, MFT, journaling
>log, USN journals, ...

In fairness, US Customs doesn't have the expertise to evaluate such data
unless you're declared a person of interest...

Usually they're just surfing for porn or whatever else they can nab
easily.

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.22217b3410dc70a2989a44@Adfree.usenet.com. ..
> > In article > > @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
> >> Eliminator? Think again?
> >
> > No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.
> >
> > All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
> > tracks.
>
> Read the article, Customs can copy ANYTHING from your
> computer, even confidential company information.

If you are traveling with private information on your computer or
company/medical data on your computer you are asking for trouble.

Now, you failed to address what I responded it - EE is not all you think
it is.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.21fc5120ba1d8539899a2@Adfree.usenet.com.. .
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
>> their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.
>
> The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school
> rules while it's on their (school) network - the user agreed to that
> when they were given access (in 99% of all cases I know of) and that
> means they agreed to NOT violate policy.


I can't blame some parents for doing that. Long, LONG ago,
I did chat with one girl in one chat room, who was a student
at Bob Jones University, who was using an AOL dial-up
account through her cell-phone, despite the campus rules,
to get on. She paid for her AOL account a year ahead
of time, and logged on through her cell phone and AOL
account. Cell phones, themselves, are not prohibited at
BJU, just using them to access the Internet, instead of
using the on-campus network. Since modern cell phone
signals are scrambled, I don't see HOW they could
find out you were accessing the Internet via your cell
phone, since they could not eavesdrop on the signal.
Encrypted digital cell phone service has been around
since at LEAST the late 1990s. So short, of using
illegal cell phone jammers, it would be difficult, if
not IMPOSSIBLE, for Bob Jones U, to stop someone
from accessing the Internet from their cell phones, be it
through dial-up, or through faster 3G networks. She got
away with using her cell phone, and AOL accont, becuase
the signal cannot be eavesdropped upon.


I found out that BJU has some of the TIGHEST rules
of any college ever. You are not allowed to watch TV in
the dorms. When you go home to your parents, you are not
allowed to watch any movie above a G rating, or any TV
show above a TV-G rating.

Since I implemented my public VPN server, I have
seen a lot of traffic coming from Bob Jones University,
and now I can see why, with all the DRACONIAN
rules they have. Since some of the P2P TV services
usually have the major U.S. television networks being
rebroadcast by SOMEONE, I am seeing hits into
my VPN server coming from Bob Jones U, so TVU
and TVANTS, where people are rebroadcasting the
TV networks. Since the connection to MY server
is encrypted, that is no POSSIBLE way the admins at
Bob Jones U can find out WHAT is going on. I did
see a lot of traffic from BJU going to the TVU feed of
CBS affiliate KPIX in San Francisco, during the
NCAA basketball tournament. Seems that a lot of
BJU students wanted to tune into the games, without
the University administration knowing about it. All
that University administration would know is that people
were downloading heavily encrypted data packets at the
rate of 420K for each person connected. As the saying
goes, "The book is open, but the pages are in an unreadable
language".