Web-based Anonymizer Discontinued

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."

Well....

[NickCatal]

All they needed to do was connect to Internet2 and replace the ads on MySpace with their own and they would have been set...

Re:Child Pornography and Terrorism

[Ant P.]

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?

Logic?

[msimm]

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.

I've been anonymized

[ToiletDuk]

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.

Re:Really stupid question here...

[The One and Only]

I don't think it's a flaw to assume that people have reasons for wanting whatever it is they want.

Re:Child Pornography and Terrorism

[daigu]

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".

Re:Really stupid question here...

[Cairnarvon]

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]

Re:Really stupid question here...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh, I have a reason to desire anonymity. I don't like George W. Bush. In today's climate, that's enough reason.

Re:never was the best solution

[delirium of disorder]

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 the free speech rights of young people! Why should any images be illegal? It's really strange....rape and murder are considered chief crimes, yet no (modern sane liberal) would think about making pictures of (adult) people being raped or murdered illegal. Somehow it's acceptable to make one big exception to the first amendment: images of sexually mature people doing what they do. Teens get charged child porn for taking pictures of themselves! (Don't they see themselves naked every time they bath?) In some states the age of consent is 17 or even 16, so it's perfectly legal for any adult to have sex with youth of those ages...yet since federal law governs porn, they can't look at pictures of the very same people. It's legal to gangbang a 16 year old, but she can't take pics of herself? Fuck the law!

Re:Nothing to get excited about

[ClaraBow]

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.

Re:no loss

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you get to be anonymous. It never has.

You need to completely eviscerate that false belief from your world view.

Held:
Section 3599.09(A)'s prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment.
--Mcintyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1975) [findlaw.com]

Closed source advantages

[PadRacerExtreme]

And of course it's closed-source, which means it has few advantages over several other alternatives.

Did I really just read on /. that closed source has advantages over open source? Or is my irony meter just broken this morning.....