The Educational CyberPlayGround Educational CyberPlayGround

 

EMAIL AND SURF ANNONYMOUSLY, Anonymity At Any Cost, STOP CENSORSHIP GET AROUND FILTER

Top Ten Ways to Protect Your Privacy Online

1. Look for privacy policies on the Web
2. Get a separate email account for personal email
3. Teach your kids that giving out personal information online is like giving it to strangers
4. Clear your memory cache after browsing
5. Make sure that online forms are secure
6. Reject unnecessary cookies
7. Use anonymous remailers
8. Encrypt your email
9. Use anonymizers while browsing
10. Opt-Out of Third Party Information Sharing

WHAT COUNTRY AND WHAT SOFTWARE CENSORS PEOPLE?

CENSORSHIP OF THE internet
is common place in most regions of the world.

How to DISABLE YOUR BLOCKING SOFTWARE

GET AROUND THEIR BLOCKING SOFTWARE.
Defeats all Internet censorship programs, from Net Nanny to the national firewalls used by the government of China. Turn your home computer into a Web site that people can access to the web.

BACK TO -- ALL ABOUT EMAIL

SURF ANNONYMOUSLY - Free Online Anonymity Services where you can maintain your privacy online

WHAT IS AN ANONYMOUS REMAILER?

Anonymity At Any Cost
by Declan McCullagh November 24, 1997
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1594,00.html

When Lance Cottrell created an easy-to-use anonymous e-mail service back in 1994, he feared that nobody would use it. "I used to be worried that people didn't want anonymity enough to pay for it," he says. Today his company, Infonex, boasts 3,000 customers who pay $60 a year to browse the Web without leaving behind digital footprints. Which leaves Cottrell with new and more troubling worries. The mushrooming popularity of his Web-based "Anonymizer" (he also offers a slower, free version) has placed him at the heart of an explosive Internet debate over the limits of free speech and privacy online. Is Infonex - or Cottrell personally - responsible if a user breaks the law and can't be traced? Should the government restrict anonymous remailers or untraceable Web browsing? Last weekend Cottrell and I joined 40 lawyers, technologists and academics at a conference sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Our charge: to puzzle through some of the questions surrounding anonymous communication. (Full disclosure: Since AAAS invited me to participate in the conference, the group paid for my trip to the University of California at Irvine.)The answers, in part, came from focus groups during the second half of the conference (mine included Esther Dyson and Peter Neumann). We decided that: 1. Anonymity is not inherently bad. 2. Governments should not attempt to restrict anonymity.3. Communities should develop their own policies on anonymity. 4. Users should know the conditions under which they are communicating. 5. Users should know that there are no guarantees of perfect anonymity.6. Users should be educated about the kinds of technologies available for surveillance and for anonymity. 7. Anonymity requires strong encryption without government backdoors.At least one other group decided that the government should limit anonymity. "The question seems to me to be whether there should be any restrictions in the system that allows traceability," said Philip Reitinger, a Justice Department prosecutor. His comments foreshadow a debate similar to the one currently happening over encryption, in which the FBI insists you only use software to which the government has backdoor access. Look for Louis Freeh to demand that anonymous remailers to keep logs for his G-Men. Of course, would-be regulators must grapple with the same problems as they did with the Communications Decency Act: The U.S. has a rich history of protecting anonymous free expression. Not only were the Federalist Papers published anonymously, but a recent Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed the right to speak anonymously. Then there are the problems of banning overseas remailers. "No law relying on territorial sovereignty will ultimately have much of an impact," said David Post, a law professor at Temple University.Nobody knows this better than Cottrell. A few months ago the Austrian government asked him to cough up the identity of one of his users who published Nazi propaganda. The propagandist in question appeared to be living in Austria, where Holocaust revisionism is a crime. "We are rightly interested in finding out who are the persons that are renting the domain name ostara.org," an August 22 fax from the Austrian federal police said. Cottrell's reply: that he would only open his books with a U.S. court order - and even then, he keeps no records to turn over. "I imagine they weren't pleased with my response," he says.Links:Infonex

American Association for the Advancement of Science

National Do Not Call List https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspxUse

Operation Opt-Out A single place to remove your name from profiling, marketing, and research databases.

Report Finds Federal Agencies SSN Protections

InadequateMail Abuse Prevention System's Dial-up User List.
The DUL Project exists primarily to prevent trespassing by mass e-mailers who offload unsolicited e-mail, aka: spam, using direct connections to their victims' mail servers without using their ISP's mail server as a relay or gateway. It also serves to educate dial-up Internet providers about trespass spammers, a group sharply increasing in numbers due to anti-relay measures such as the MAPS RBL and the Transport Security Initiative. The MAPS DUL lists dial-up and other dynamically assigned IP addresses for the convenience of mail administrators wishing to stop this trespassing, and for Internet providers to help prevent trespassing by volunteering their dial-up information to us. If you seem unable to deliver mail because you are on this list, it is because your intended recipients have deliberately chosen not to receive mail from you in this manner. We are not the Internet's police force, rather, we identify origins of such trespassing.

Technically, you have the power to "opt out" to tell the banks, card issuers and others that you don't want your good name peddled to strangers. But although the law now requires that financial marketers must notify you once a year of their privacy policies, with a chance to opt out, research shows that only 5 percent of consumers do so.

(Tip: If you don't respond exactly the way the company tells you to say, by phone instead of letter it may not honor your opt-out request at all.)The two key laws are:
1) The Financial Services Modernization Act (also known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley), which allows you to opt out of information-sharing only with non-affiliated third parties and not with a company's affiliates.2) The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which allows you to opt out or prevent a company from sharing "creditworthiness" information with its affiliates. Example: How you've been paying your bills.The main three areas you should cover with your opt-out actions, according to the Federal Trade Commission, are credit bureaus, department of motor vehicles, and direct marketers. The excellent FTC Web site at www.ftc.gov shows you everything you need, from all the credit bureau addresses to a list of states where you can click on to find your department of motor vehicles, and the Direct Marketing Association's address.There's even a sample letter to send to the national credit bureaus. Or you can phone the bureaus toll-free at (888) OPTOUT (888-567-8688) to opt out of all preapproved credit offers. Other good sites to guide you are those of the Center for Democracy & Technology, at cdt.org, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, at privacyrights.org.

U.S. blunders with keyword blacklist
Source: ZDNet Date Written: May 3, 2004
The United States International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) provides a web service to let citizens of such countries as China and Iran bypass their country's Internet censorship. However, an independent report from the OpenNet Initiative finds that the IBB system maintains its own system of censorship largely aimed at pornography. While the IBB does not want to use taxpayer money to provide a pornography portal for other countries, blacklisted words can block sites that may be useful to people trying to evade their countries censors, such as 'ass' which blocks usembassy.state.gov, or 'gay' which blocks sites dealing with gay and lesbian issues--potentially useful in countries like Iran where homosexuality can mean the death penalty. IBB says the blacklist was created by the contractor Anonymizer, an anonymous web portal. The report also criticizes the IBB and Anonymizer for lacking SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) encryption to better protect web surfers.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5204637.html

About Us | Privacy Policy | | ©1997 Educational CyberPlayGround, All rights reserved world wide.