Privacy Wipe Apps ?
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: u-tube
Next: "Progress" [was: Scanner driver]
From: Sam Luter on 14 Jan 2010 19:27 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:04:48 -0500, JB wrote: > And as ironic as it is, the very name of this "bundle" actually > calls out the two main, *separate* applications contained therein... > Tor, and a browser. And if you can't unhook them, as in Xerobank, it's a "Tor browser". duh.
From: Franklin on 14 Jan 2010 19:55 wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:56:29 -0500, JB <none(a)server.null> wrote: > >>whome? wrote: >> >>> Who said you could use the web anonymously? If you use Tor or >>> whatever, there is an IP address at each end. There is no such thing >>> as anonynous web usage. >> >>Wrong. >> >>Tor does indeed provide hard anonymity. >> >> That anonymity comes from it being mathematically unfeasible for >> *anyone* to collate an IP on one side of the Tor network with an IP >> on the other. Yes, both are visible to casual observers, but it's >> impossible to know that the IP on the exit side of Tor is being >> used by any given user at their IP address on the entry side. >> Multiple layers of strong, public key encryption see to that. > > Man, you are stubborn. The Tor server has an IP. Your ISP logs your > IP and the Tor IP. Once your packets hit the tor server, the > encryption is removed, and the packets continue to your desired web > site. The Tor server has an ISP like you and I do. The Tor ISP logs > all its traffic, including the Tor exit packets. The only thing Tor > does is make your traffic BLIND to your ISP only. Some web sites seek to acquire your IP in order to know more than you might wish to reveal. Hummingbird runs such a site and I visit it only via Tor or a VPN. Bearware is a site whose owner seems capricious and might collect IPs. > Any cop can unmask you with minimal effort, especially in the UK. Tor > is not worth the time.
From: Franklin on 14 Jan 2010 19:55 JB <none(a)server.null> wrote in news:hil4i0$h1a$1(a)news.eternal- september.org: > hummingbird wrote: > >> 'JB' wrote thus: >> >> >hummingbird wrote: >> > >> >> 'JB' wrote thus: >> >> >> >> >hummingbird wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >Who said you could use the web anonymously? >> >> >> >> >> >> Why else would you want a browser that (in your own words) >> >> >> allows you to indulge in "Private Browsing"? >> >> > >> >> >You need to learn the difference between privacy and anonymity. >> >> >> >> No I don't. My understanding is fine, thanks. >> >> >> >> You need to understand what I wrote before. >> >> >> >The poster asked about privacy and you started muttering about >> >anonymity. >> >> Get yer facts straight. >> >> I genuinely believed > > Your now-professed "beliefs" are meaningless. You wrote what you > wrote. And what you wrote gleamed of confusion. You couldn't even > separate the concepts of privacy and anonymity in your mind at all. > You apparently considered them synonymous. "Why else...". > > No, the truth is I straightened you out regarding the differences > between anonymity and privacy, and rather than thanking me you > tried this "I didn't mean what I wrote, I meant what you said" > childishness. > > Sorry it didn't work out for you. > > But not that sorry. > >> the OP was conflating the two things, so >> kindly pointed out that deleting your history is not the same as >> surfing anonymously. I had no idea who "whome?" is and he/she >> could easily have been a noob. >> >> Then you appeared out of nowhere...eager to tell the world what >> you know... <shrug> > > In case you're oblivious to this bit of information also - you're > participating in what's called a "public forum". That means people > will often "appear out of nowhere" with superior knowledge of a > subject, and use that superior knowledge to straighten out the > mistakes made by people like you. People who know much less but > don't realize it. Ironic as it is in the context of your little rant > about being "ambushed", that's the way Usenet was designed to work. > > In the future, if you find the process of having your mistakes > corrected distasteful perhaps you should limit your replies to > private email? > > Just a thought. > > Oh, and you''re welcome for today's second lesson too. :) Hello JB, please don't expect the usual debating courtesies from Hummingbird. When he gets something wrong (and he's going through a bad patch at the moment) then his strategy is to endless deny the facts in the hope the other person will walks away. Nice to see you've decided not to walk away but prefer to explain matters more clearly. In actual fact, Hummingbird probably still won't listen but I find there's a warm feeling after irrefutably cramming facts into Hummingbird's head.
From: »Q« on 14 Jan 2010 22:08 In <news:053437d89111bd68e68d63504171214a(a)aracari.org>, hummingbird <hummingbírd(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > Dunno about Opera, but insofar as FF is concerned, you cannot use > that particular browser edition without Tor because (at least) the > connection config is preset to SOCKS5. Unless they've severely crippled Torbutton, it allows you to switch to "no proxy", but there are safeguards against doing it accidentally.
From: N4469P on 15 Jan 2010 04:37
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:26:13 GMT, Sam Luter wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:04:48 -0500, JB wrote: > >>>> >>>> No, you are. >>>> You are making a fool of yourself, JB. >>>> >>>>>There's no such thing as a "Tor browser". >>>> >>>> http://www.torproject.org/torbrowser/index.html.en >>> >>> pwned >> >> Indeed. > > Idiot, it's clear I'm going to forge you and you can't do anything > about it because you will look like you're talking to himself. > Keep up. Forgery. Abuse reported. |