Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Web-based Anonymizer Discontinued

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Jul 19, 2007 07:29 PM
from the end-of-the-road dept.
RobertB-DC writes "With no fanfare, and apparently no outcry from the privacy community, Anonymizer Inc. discontinued its web-based Private Surfing service effective June 20, 2007. No reason was given, either on the Anonymizer web site or on founder Lance Cottrell's privacy blog. Private Surfing customers are now required to download a anonymizing client that handles all TCP traffic, but the program is Windows-only (with Vista support still a work-in-progress). And of course it's closed-source, which means it has few advantages over several other alternatives."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by teutonic_leech (596265) on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:32PM (#19921593)
    ... to say that this really sucks. I used Anonymizer all the time....
    • by Shawn is an Asshole (845769) on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:42PM (#19921707)
      Well, Peacefire [peacefire.org] should meet your web based anonymizing needs. If you need more, that's what Tor [eff.org] and JAP [tu-dresden.de] are for.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:49PM (#19921761)

      ... to say that this really sucks. I used Anonymizer all the time....
      Oops! I meant to post as AC. Ignore that previous post. It wasn't me. Really.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      [blatant advertising]
      sureproxy.com!
      [/blatant advertising]
    • by bahamat (187909) on Friday July 20 2007, @08:22AM (#19925901) Homepage
      I'm the senior systems administrator for Anonymizer.

      The reason Private Surfing was discontinued is because it was designed almost 10 years ago using Apache modules coded in C and some horrible Lex. All of our flagship products since then (Privacy Manager, Anonymizer 2004/2005, Total Privacy Suite and Anonymous Surfing) have been evolutions of that code base. Today our Anonymous Surfing server looks nothing like the old Private Surfing. PS was badly showing its age, and the reality of the situation was that it was becoming increasingly difficult to compile current versions of Apache with that old code. Every Apache security update provided more headaches for us. It didn't really work with any of the newer Web 2.0 AJAX stuff either. Javascript is extremely difficult to anonymize in a web based client and still continue to work. Gmail and Google Maps, just to name two, were completely unusable. This is also the case with any other web based proxy that I have ever seen.

      Also, PS had very few subscribers, and an extremely low conversion rate for the free PS to any other product, even though free PS was very overloaded, slow, had rate limits, request count limits, blocking of many major websites (including Slashdot) and our pay services are very cheap. Total Net Shield is less than $9/month, and Anonymous Surfing is $2.50/month (seriously, how much of a tightwad do you have to be to put up with using the free version of PS every day and not pay for AS?). After all, Anonymizer is a business, and from the business side of the company it wasn't cost effective to continue maintaining PS any longer. We didn't kill it, so much as it died a slow lingering death of natural causes.

      Contrary to popular belief, our products are not Windows only. Unfortunately, the Anonymous Surfing and Total Net Shield clients we produce are Windows based. However, Total Net Shield uses pure and simple SSH tunneling. That means any SSH compliant client (including the handy dandy (and bundled with your favorite Linux distribution, Mac OS X, Solaris and *BSD), and open source, OpenSSH) can be used with TNS. That also means that for people experienced with setting up SSH tunnels you can configure it to use any TCP port, or OpenSSH's built in SOCKS proxy. Nyms (disposable e-mail addresses) is fully web based. All of our enterprise level products (check our website if you're curious what this is) are platform independent and require no software installation.

      We also have some benefits over TOR. Because we combine multi-layer proxies with multi-layer NAT our users can't be tracked by clock skews, there's no exit node snooping vulnerability (yes, technically we can see everything but all of our products are either not logged or logs are purged after 2 days), and we have a lot better speed/reliability than TOR.

      One last thing, is that we the Anonymizer administrators are a part of this community. We work for Anonymizer because we're concerned about privacy, free speech, etc. We see and hear what's going on. Most of us read sites like slashdot, digg and del.icio.us every day. We don't always comment and sometimes we can't. But we're anonymously standing here right next to you.
  • LOL (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Shut down, closed source and windows only. It's a trifecta!
  • no loss (Score:3, Insightful)

    by batray (257663) on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:33PM (#19921605)
    I have blocked anoymizer access to my BBS for several years. It was only used by abusive posters to block their identity.
    • Re:no loss (Score:5, Funny)

      by riceboy50 (631755) on Thursday July 19 2007, @08:17PM (#19921975)
      In other words it enabled freedom of speech? *ducks*
    • I have blocked anoymizer access to my BBS for several years. It was only used by abusive posters to block their identity.

      I agree, Unipeak was used to post a threatening comment on my webpage about litigation [cgstock.com] I'm involved in, apparently by the other party in the lawsuit:

      date:2006-07-01
      ip:207.234.209.125 Unipeak, anonymous proxy used by Andrew Vilenchik
      name:Anonymous
      comment:Chris, be aware I\'ve heard Andrew has relations with Russian mafia. I would be very careful.
      Winning the case may not mean $$ for you

  • by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:34PM (#19921611)
    With the other posts here about the FBI spyware, the possibility of government back doors in the various AV products, etc, maybe they decided to fold and close the doors instead of open mandated holes? Pure guessing but if the NSA/FBI/whoever went to them and said open this up for us, aplace like Anonymizer, founded on privacy, might not be able to be as morally flexible as the AV vendors who are looking for "viruses" and "spyware".
    • Logic? (Score:3, Interesting)

      Fold and close the door? The summary says they are requiring the use of a client. From the sound of it, a proxy that funnels your traffic. Frankly I don't see how this would protect their customers. What it does do is exclude non-Windows users (their previous version provided a web-based service that only required a browser with SSL support).

      If the NSA/FBI/etc wants to broker/enforce a court order/etc this does nothing to slow that down.
  • by delirium of disorder (701392) on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:56PM (#19921817) Homepage Journal
    Anyone relying on a one hop proxy to be anonymous is fooling themselves. You need an anonymity network that doesn't rely on trusting any host and that cannot be blocked without finding out who every host is. What if everyone who used anonymity services also provided such service? Think of how much better the whole system would work if it were p2p! Please install your tor server [eff.org] today.
      • tor may make it easier for "child pornographers" to distribute their wares...but I think that's a good thing!

        The vast majority of so called "child porn" consists of pictures taken by teens of either themselves or their partners. Pictures take consensually. Pictures taken by minors, not creepy old people. Talk to any socially active high schooler. They'll know people their own age who have sex and will know someone who has pics of the act.

        If you want to crack down on rape, go ahead, but stop suppressing
        • by mollymoo (202721) on Friday July 20 2007, @12:28PM (#19929371) Journal

          The vast majority of so called "child porn" consists of pictures taken by teens of either themselves or their partners. Pictures take consensually. Pictures taken by minors, not creepy old people.

          What is the source for that assertion?

          If you want to crack down on rape, go ahead, but stop suppressing the free speech rights of young people!

          Children are (rightly) considered to be unable to make informed choices due to their lack of knowledge and experience about the world and are thus not considered to be fully responsible for their actions. I'm sure you'd agree that's true of a 5 year old and also agree that a (mentally competent) 30 year old should be held responsible for their actions. Rights without responsibility would be a recipe for disaster, so those with limited responsibility get limited rights. Feel free to debate where the line between child and adult should be, but there really does need to be a line. If you think that line is set too high, don't forget that the people drawing that line all have first-hand experience of being teenagers; they know how much they thought they knew and how little they really knew about life back then.

  • One potential advantage is that I can't get TOR to work with the ISA proxy where I work. Proper configuration is scanty, and help resources have been non-existant. Perhaps this will work more easily in such a setup.
  • by kd3bj (733314) on Thursday July 19 2007, @08:10PM (#19921931) Homepage
    There are many different proxies available at JTAN [jtan.com].
  • I've been anonymized (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ToiletDuk (6366) on Thursday July 19 2007, @08:29PM (#19922045)
    As someone who actually paid money for the full Anonymizer service, I'm quite disappointed with the web interface going away and I have missed it dearly. The anonproxy.exe POS that they use crashes pretty much daily for me, something the web proxy never did. I'm upset that I've paid money for a service that lost a significant amount of its value after I purchased it.
  • by Lance Cottrell (1130525) on Thursday July 19 2007, @08:43PM (#19922137)
    I am the president and founder of Anonymizer.com. Our web based private surfing service was discontinued for one reason. We could not use that technology to deliver the level and quality of service we feel our customers deserve. To effectively deliver a web-based service, one must either disable all active content (which will break most major websites these days) or try to detect and rewrite all links or redirect commands that may be embedded in web pages. It is impossible to do this completely. Any missed links will lead the user to connect directly to the target site and be left exposed.

    We have not stopped providing privacy services. They are all now client based. It is the only way to ensure the security of our users. While the basic service is currently windows only (which is sad since I am a Mac person myself) our TNS product is completely functional from Mac or Linux (or Windows).

    We are in no way downsizing our services. There were so few active users of our Private Surfing service, compared to our other services; it made no sense to try to keep a broken product limping along.

    As far as security goes, since I see a few posts about that, it is simply a matter of personal choice. We deliver the best performance available. In almost 12 years of service no user has ever had his surfing activities compromised in any way. If we had some kind of law enforcement back door, it would hardly be a secret at this point. Alternatives require you to trust some exit point of unknown trustworthiness that may be actively modifying or monitoring content. There are advantages and disadvantages to all security models. In the real world and for most users, I think Anonymizer provides the best solution. Make up your own mind for your own circumstances.

    • I really wish more companies had CEO's and presidents as logical and upfront as you seem to be. I ran a small time anonymizer for a long time and I ran into people complaining about the same sorts of things your company has run into. With so many pages including AJAX and other stuff like that it isn't really feasible to run a web based anonymizer except for special cases.
    • by ClaraBow (212734) on Thursday July 19 2007, @10:03PM (#19922703)

      Our TNS product is completely functional from Mac or Linux (or Windows).

      I don't complete understand this statement, because I went to your website and it specifically says that your TNS product is supported in windows only. Could you please explain? Thanks.
      • Simple. Setup a Windows proxy on one machine and route your Linux/Mac connections through there. :-P

        (PS. Joke. I hope he doesn't actually give this as an answer)
      • by Lance Cottrell (1130525) on Friday July 20 2007, @08:46AM (#19926161)
        Sure, the website is a little unclear. The client we provide for TNS is a windows client, but the service is simply built on SSH tunnels. It is easy to set up and use the service without the client on any system with SSH.
    • by Ant P. (974313) on Thursday July 19 2007, @07:47PM (#19921745) Homepage
      And your OS should have no firewall and share the root directory to the world by default.

      After all, it's not like you're hiding kiddie porn on your hard drive, eh?
        • I know this may be difficult to understand... but the internet CAN'T HARM ANYONE it's a bunch of interconnected computers... People on the other hand, can harm other people. People can use an item, be it the internet, a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a stick, a heavy rock, a little rock, a bomb, a pen, a towel, a piece of rope, or a rotten egg to harm people... but the inanimate object can't harm someone.

          Nephilium

          • Dude, I know this is Slashdot, and that we can't expect anyone to RTFA, but at least read the comment you're replying to.

            The relevant portion is: "keep track of people that use the internet to harm others".

            Call me crazy, but I don't think pointing out that the internet can't hurt anyone is a valid response... cause, you know, he never said it could.

            I don't even necessarily agree with the GP, but that was just lame.
    • The Internet is a tool. Just like cars are tools, guns are tools, and Zyklon-B is a chemical tool. Tools have no moral status; They do neither right nor wrong. What people do with tools is what is right or wrong.

      The solution to terrorists and pedophiles abusing the 'Net is to hunt down and kill the terrorists and pedophiles, not harm the 'Net.
      • The solution to terrorists and pedophiles abusing the 'Net is to hunt down and kill the terrorists and pedophiles, not harm the 'Net.


        If they're anonymous, hunt them down how?
        • by Great_Geek (237841) on Thursday July 19 2007, @08:40PM (#19922123)
          You are exactly right! All those privacy nuts just don't understand that only terrorists and pedophiles hide behind anonymous comunications. In the name of "War on horror-de-jour", we must immediately ban all forms of anonyumous communication:
          • before you can mail a letter, your identity must be authenticated by biometrics and the complete content of the letter entered into "The System" for later analysis
          • all telephone calls will also require biometric authentication
          • all walkie-talkies will have individual serial numbers, and the serial number must be transmitted every second. Since this is serious security, the serial number and the transmission hardware must be tamper-prove - expensive, but no amount of money is too much where security is concerned
          • Since terrorists can use strings to connect tin cans to make communication devices, possession of any can means life imprisionment at Gitmo.
          • Historically, many annonymous notes have been written on paper. We must institute a new system where paper is only available to authorised government agents; illegial possession of paper is also grounds for shippment to Gitmo.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Some "tools" are inherently immoral. Chemical weapons such as nerve agents strke me as a unambigious example since there is no legitimate use of these kind of weapons. A weapons grade ebola virus would be another example. If you can't do anything "right" with a so-called "tool" then the creation, use and even the existance of said "tool" are all "wrong".
        • Say there is a sudden genetic mutation in monkeys. This mutation makes monkeys 1000% more intelligent and they become hell-bent on destroying the world, it also makes them stronger and more agile, they are also all totally insane(think orcs in Warhammer 40K). Would not a chemical or biological weapon be the tool be of use to rid the world of this menance?
        • Some "tools" are inherently immoral. Chemical weapons such as nerve agents strke me as a unambigious example since there is no legitimate use of these kind of weapons. A weapons grade ebola virus would be another example. If you can't do anything "right" with a so-called "tool" then the creation, use and even the existance of said "tool" are all "wrong".
          Nerve agents? I have several cans under my sink. Organic phosphates (cholinesterase inhibitors) were invented to kill people. They are now, quite legitimately, used to kill bugs. I tend to use them as a tool of last resort (preferring Taro powder, et al), but they are certainly tools. There a number of chemical weapons in this category. Dynamite was *not* invented to kill people, but look where it has gotten us.

          The problem is while agreeing wholly with your sentiment, in practice drawing the line is very hard. Weaponized forms of super-bugs I think is an unambiguous no-no, but *research* along that line is quite necessary, at the least so that someone has a chance of countering a bio-weapon when one is let loose. How do you loosen the cork without letting the genie out? Even relatively small labs now have the potential ability to create their own customized bugs and knowledge is in general circulation, so it is already too late to entirely prevent a future problem. Only mitigation is left.

          It is unfortunate because, in many cases, I think we do need to put the breaks on a bit. Our track record with many kinds of meddling is poor, and we are doing so at an increasing rate; so quickly we cannot adequately measure effects to better target our meddling. In practice, however, stopping the train is not easy.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          it makes it harder for sickos to do what sickos do.
          Doubtful. There are so many ways to surf and do whatever anonymously. I guess this just means they need to learn a little bit more about the internet before engaging in illegal acts.
    • by mikelieman (35628) on Thursday July 19 2007, @08:42PM (#19922135) Homepage
      YOU JUST WANT TO BE ANONYMOUS.

      The flaw is that you're assuming that a desire to be anonymous means you have a REASON to be anonymous.

      • I don't think it's a flaw to assume that people have reasons for wanting whatever it is they want.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          Oh, I have a reason to desire anonymity. I don't like George W. Bush. In today's climate, that's enough reason.
          • It seems intuitively absurd to think that people want things for literally no reason, because it seems intuitively absurd to think that anything happens for literally no reason. (That's not the same as people wanting things for bad reasons or unjustifiable reasons.) The right or wrong we can argue about, but it's certainly reasonable to think that.
      • Wow. It was just a question and a fairly harmless one at that. By the way, my sig was meant for folks like you. :D

        And to think, YOU are the example of INSIGHTFUL. Way to set the bar pretty low. LOL.

        Anyway. You have a reason to want privacy. Everyone does. Whether the reason is broad and abstract, such as a desire to relax in a safe space, or whether it's specific, such as fear of retribution, you still have a reason. If you don't have a reason, you're just a lowly animal getting by on stimulus/respons
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      The "you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide" fallacy again?

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/20 54219 [slashdot.org]
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2007, @09:22PM (#19922429)
      ...all nations are restricted now, and all governments are in the big brother business. That's the overall general trend and it shows *no* signs of slowing down any.

      If anyone doubts that, just think about a few things-are any nations going out of their way to pull monitoring cameras, or is the trend to keep installing more and more, even in the so called "free" nations? How about official eavesdropping and data retention laws for ISPs and so on? Are you feeling lucky with corporate data mining from anyplace, or are all of them complete fucktards about gobbling up all the data they can scrounge? And then "sharing" with the local regime/council/government/ruling class overlords? Are there any nations which haven't jumped on the "terrorism" bandwagon to excuse passing more restrictive laws and for increasing their so called "security" budgets?

      The bottom line is, it doesn't matter where you live, if you aren't concerned over voicing your opinion, you aren't paying attention or you have a hidden suicidal death wish you are in psychological denial over or you have never read one history book.

        Sure, a lot of places you still can talk or write-within some restrictions, but eventually your words may come back to haunt you.

          You look back in history it's the same story over and over again, no matter how "cool" governments are, or started out as, no matter how "popular" with "the people", eventually ALL of them have gone through a dictatorial stage and either totally collapsed, or partially collapsed then went through a series of (usually worse) dictatorships. And, again speaking historically, events can change "your" local reality in the space of one day. One single day,. one event is all it takes to completely change things. Some archduke gets whacked. A big legislature building burns down, and a patsy is blamed for it. A very popular young president, then his brother, same thing, whacked, patsies picked up. Some planes hit some ships in a tropical island port. Some other planes hit some buildings. Some subway cars and buses explode. Some insane and too brave for reality idealist stands in front of a tank. A few colonels one night decide to "regime change" locally. A dictator gets sick, leaves the nation to get medical care, a firebrand cleric flies in and takes over. A ruler and his advisors decides to lie about attacks on destroyers, the big lie stands for fourty years.

      And so on. Stuff happens. Politics is always chancy. And no, anyone "you", you don't live in a "free" country, although you might not live in one of the more restricted at this point in time countries. The *scale* is the only variable, and history shows us that variables are just that and can and often do change with no notice to you.

          What you thought was safe and free political speech yesterday is now "terrorist hate speech" or some other boggey man phrase they come up with, and you're on the shitlist record for it. Several years ago did you donate some spare change, a few bucks, to some charity? Whoops, now you are on some watch list and could be arrested for aiding the enemy, whoops, merely "detained"...........

      Reality is, politics and smugness shouldn't go together.

    • Political message: ok, I understand that if you're living in a restricted country.


      A good percentage of the internet users & slashdot readers are
      from the USA. So this is a very valid need what with the Patriot
      Act, and all the other stuff which the Supreme Dictator has
      changed.

    • by magores (208594) on Thursday July 19 2007, @10:28PM (#19922851) Homepage Journal
      I live in China. I can't see bbc, wikipedia, or blogspot without proxies.

      Why anonymous? See the first sentence of my post.

      /my reasons good enough for you?
      • I live in China. I can't see bbc, wikipedia, or blogspot without proxies.
        That falls under restricted country I guess, but hey.. at least you answered the question without the usual slashdot assholiness. :D

        I consider that victory.

      • by lena_10326 (1100441) on Friday July 20 2007, @12:31AM (#19923539) Homepage

        It's too bad you were modded down, as you have a really good question. "Why do we need privacy?" is worth asking.
        I just think it's a question people ought to think about instead of bitch about. I also wanted to fish for some unique answers.

        I don't have to worry about whether someone in IT noticed that Google search for "guns" the other day, or if they're going to take it the wrong way.
        I think that's unique enough. Heh. I think your other question touches something more abstract about human nature. People tend to assume Y if you searched on X, but your reason may have been Z, so by keeping your search private you avoid the problem entirely. Ex: you surfed for machine guns, so your boss thinks you're going to shootup the office, but you're actually writing a gun smuggling novel in your spare time.

        You also could cause yourself to fall under moral discrimination if your boss knew your interests without your providing them. Boss = anti-abortion, You = pro-abortion, and after searching for an abortion clinic, your progress reports mysteriously tank and you have no idea why. You could also run into problems if your boss knew you were searching Monster for "unix+system+administrator", which coincidently is your job title.