A tech support guy at coste.net told me their service was pseudo anonymous.
Anybody have any idea what this mean?
I also asked if my ISP could still log all my traffic through Kazza if I was
logged into Coste.net, but he was not sure. Does anybody know about that?
"Josh Collins" <JoshCollins32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:blf1e701tie@enews2.newsguy.com...
: A tech support guy at coste.net told me their service was pseudo anonymous.
: Anybody have any idea what this mean?
Psuedo anonymous in the sense they have access to your data but your ISP does
not. Should they be required by law to provide such data then I guess they
would have no choice but to do so.
: I also asked if my ISP could still log all my traffic through Kazza if I was
: logged into Coste.net, but he was not sure. Does anybody know about that?
I don't think somehow your Kazaa traffic will be routed via coste the overhead
would be massive as would the cost to coste.
Just my 2p worth
PS Maybe consider alt.computer.security for an expert response.
"Use.Netuser.de" <sara_turner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:blf7kl$bmjt6$1@ID-151068.news.uni-berlin.de...
: "Josh Collins" <JoshCollins32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:blf1e701tie@enews2.newsguy.com...
: : A tech support guy at coste.net told me their service was pseudo
anonymous.
: : Anybody have any idea what this mean?
:
: Psuedo anonymous in the sense they have access to your data but your ISP
does
: not. Should they be required by law to provide such data then I guess they
: would have no choice but to do so.
:
: : I also asked if my ISP could still log all my traffic through Kazza if I
was
: : logged into Coste.net, but he was not sure. Does anybody know about that?
:
: I don't think somehow your Kazaa traffic will be routed via coste the
overhead
: would be massive as would the cost to coste.
: Just my 2p worth
:
:
In article <blf1e701tie@enews2.newsguy.com>, Josh Collins wrote:
> A tech support guy at coste.net told me their service was pseudo
> anonymous. Anybody have any idea what this mean?
Considering that coste.net and www.coste.net both go to a page that seems to
have nothing to do with P2P stuff, but rather seems to be a generic French
portal page, and possibly a French geneology site, I have no idea what they
heck you are talking about.
No Google hits for coste.net, either, for the web. Some hits on Google
Groups because of someone posting from an @coste.net email address.
Did you happen to get the name wrong, by any chance?
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless. See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:04:09 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Josh Collins"
<JoshCollins32@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> A tech support guy at coste.net told me their service was pseudo
> anonymous.
[snip]
ITYM "cotse.net".
> Anybody have any idea what this mean?
>
[snip]
Well, among other things, it is an acknowledgement that there is NO SUCH
THING as true anonymity on the 'net, period.
> I also asked if my ISP could still log all my traffic through Kazza if I
> was logged into Coste.net, but he was not sure.
[snip]
Stephen Gielda is a bit of a nut-case, and in the course of "discussions",
he tends to "shoot from the hip" without fully thinking things through; but
he's certainly brighter than *that*. Are you sure you asked your question
in a comprehensible manner?
In any event, the services offered by <cotse.net> (which, as is clearly
explained at <http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html>, are limited to
e-mail, a Usenet "front end", web hosting, and an HTTP proxy) would have
absolutely nothing to do with P2P traffic, which runs using entirely
different services on an entirely different set of ports.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote