Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13084 > unrolled thread

Tor Browser User Survey

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Tor Browser User Survey D <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> - 2025-04-15 23:44 +0000
    Re: Tor Browser User Survey Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-15 18:40 -0700
      Re: Tor Browser User Survey karl@invalid.com - 2025-04-15 23:12 -0500
      Re: Tor Browser User Survey "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-16 13:29 +0200
      Re: Tor Browser User Survey Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-16 07:37 -0400
        Re: Tor Browser User Survey "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-16 14:14 +0200
          Re: Tor Browser User Survey Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-16 09:55 -0400
          Re: Tor Browser User Survey Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2025-04-16 12:21 -0500
            Re: Tor Browser User Survey "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-16 19:53 +0200
        Re: Tor Browser User Survey Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-16 18:35 +0200
      Re: Tor Browser User Survey "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 05:09 -0700
        Re: Tor Browser User Survey Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-16 13:56 +0100
          Re: Tor Browser User Survey Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-16 18:37 +0200
            Re: Tor Browser User Survey Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-16 18:43 +0200
            Re: Tor Browser User Survey Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-16 17:47 +0100
          Re: Tor Browser User Survey "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-17 07:12 -0700
            Re: Tor Browser User Survey Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-17 21:09 +0100
              Re: Tor Browser User Survey Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-04-17 23:58 +0200
              Re: Tor Browser User Survey Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> - 2025-04-17 22:25 +0000
                Re: Tor Browser User Survey Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> - 2025-04-17 22:45 +0000
                Re: Tor Browser User Survey croy <croy@spam.invalid.net> - 2025-04-18 06:45 -0700
                  Re: Tor Browser User Survey Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-18 16:43 +0200
                Re: Tor Browser User Survey Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-19 12:29 +0100
                  Re: Tor Browser User Survey D <J@M> - 2025-04-19 18:55 +0200
                  Re: Tor Browser User Survey mark@NotGoogle.com - 2025-04-19 13:42 -0500
                    Re: Tor Browser User Survey D <J@M> - 2025-04-19 22:08 +0200
                    Re: Tor Browser User Survey Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-19 21:14 +0100
                      Re: Tor Browser User Survey mark@NotGoogle.com - 2025-04-19 17:15 -0500
                  4chan.org hacked beyond repair!! Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> - 2025-04-20 02:00 +0000
                    Re: 4chan.org hacked beyond repair!! "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 04:00 -0700
      Re: Tor Browser User Survey Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-04-16 11:41 -0400
        Re: Tor Browser User Survey Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-16 18:38 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#13134

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:25:19 +0000, Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> wrote:

>Are you aware that the source code made public is sanitised while the 
>binaries might be tweaked  to catch people like John C browsing illegal 
>porn sites.

Anything is illegal somewhere.

-- 
croy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13135

On 18.04.25 15:45, croy wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:25:19 +0000, Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Are you aware that the source code made public is sanitised while the 
>> binaries might be tweaked  to catch people like John C browsing illegal 
>> porn sites.
> 
> Anything is illegal somewhere.

You mean sanitise the source code?
*SCNR*

-- 
"Mille viae ducunt hominem per saecula Romam." (Alanus ab Insulis 1120-1202)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13143

Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> writes:

> On 17/04/2025 21:09, Richmond wrote:
>
>> 
>> Why are you convinced of that? It is open source, so someone can
>> check the crypto. They may know about flaws in that. They may monitor
>> exit nodes and look for patterns.
>
>
> Are you aware that the source code made public is sanitised while the
> binaries might be tweaked to catch people like John C browsing illegal
> porn sites.  Bad guys or government agencies know that people are not
> going to spend time to audit the source code for anything suspicious.
>
> Do you know how many separate files make the source code for the
> browser?
>
> China, Iran, Russia or North Korea (at government level) might spend
> time but that's for their own national security. They can't trust
> American or Israeli governments.

I think what you have to do is consider who wants to get their hands on
your information, and which method is going to make it most difficult
for them. TOR may not be perfect but it is better than trusting your
ISP. And even a VPN provider is an ISP of some sort.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13146

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:29:14 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
snip
>
>I think what you have to do is consider who wants to get their hands on
>your information, and which method is going to make it most difficult
>for them. TOR may not be perfect but it is better than trusting your
>ISP. And even a VPN provider is an ISP of some sort.

ever since the penet remailer scandal forced its shutdown in 1996
(https://web.archive.org/web/19961219211814/http://www.penet.fi/),
interest in network security, pseudonymous, and defacto anonymous
communications over open channels blossomed, and their popularity
essentially skyrocketed ... politics and religion is a black hole
in space that should always be avoided not evaded... c'est la vie

careful use of tor, remailers, etc. provides a layer of anonymity
but it's a jungle out there ... this world is ruled by the fallen
angels, avengers on a mission from god, the divine right of kings

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13149

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:29:14 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> writes:
>
>> On 17/04/2025 21:09, Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> Why are you convinced of that? It is open source, so someone can
>>> check the crypto. They may know about flaws in that. They may monitor
>>> exit nodes and look for patterns.
>>
>>
>> Are you aware that the source code made public is sanitised while the
>> binaries might be tweaked to catch people like John C browsing illegal
>> porn sites.  Bad guys or government agencies know that people are not
>> going to spend time to audit the source code for anything suspicious.
>>
>> Do you know how many separate files make the source code for the
>> browser?
>>
>> China, Iran, Russia or North Korea (at government level) might spend
>> time but that's for their own national security. They can't trust
>> American or Israeli governments.
>
>I think what you have to do is consider who wants to get their hands on
>your information, and which method is going to make it most difficult
>for them. TOR may not be perfect but it is better than trusting your
>ISP. And even a VPN provider is an ISP of some sort.

You're right.

This idiocy of the common comp user worrying incessantly about the
gov't, etc., getting their hands on the info in their computer is
ridiculous.  If you aren't a person of public interest due to
profession, financial matters or whatever, chances are it's only the
people surrounding you in your personal life that would probably have
any interest in what is on the comp of some ordinary, eight-to-five
working slob like the vast majority of us are.

This endless nonsense of claiming Tor being compromised by the gov't is
meaningless.  Many times I use Tor to look up info on my meds or medical
condition.  I don't give a darn if the government gets that info. If
they were truly interested there are many other ways outside the Web for
them to get my info, and get it more easily than "hacking" me in one way
or other.  What Tor does is keep the dollar hungry, information grabbing
Web providers and web sites from gathering and selling my info.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13150

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:42:22 -0500, mark@NotGoogle.com wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:29:14 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
snip
>>
>>I think what you have to do is consider who wants to get their hands on
>>your information, and which method is going to make it most difficult
>>for them. TOR may not be perfect but it is better than trusting your
>>ISP. And even a VPN provider is an ISP of some sort.
>
>This idiocy of the common comp user worrying incessantly about the
>gov't, etc., getting their hands on the info in their computer is
>ridiculous.  If you aren't a person of public interest due to
>profession, financial matters or whatever, chances are it's only the
>people surrounding you in your personal life that would probably have
>any interest in what is on the comp of some ordinary, eight-to-five
>working slob like the vast majority of us are.
>This endless nonsense of claiming Tor being compromised by the gov't is
>meaningless.  Many times I use Tor to look up info on my meds or medical
>condition.  I don't give a darn if the government gets that info. If
>they were truly interested there are many other ways outside the Web for
>them to get my info, and get it more easily than "hacking" me in one way
>or other.  What Tor does is keep the dollar hungry, information grabbing
>Web providers and web sites from gathering and selling my info.

no arguments there... "keep the dollar hungry" is pristine, reads like
some famous quotation https://duckduckgo.com/?q=keep+the+dollar+hungry
but google, bing, etc. also yielded no match... seems you've coined it!
(in the classic sense that axiomatic phrases don't require attribution)

"love-hate relationship" (with the dollar) describes this principle in
biblical terms, but "keep the dollar hungry" sounds more like marching
orders, similar to "vote with your feet", and my favorite 1960s bumper
sticker "what if they gave a war and nobody came" (the almighty dollar) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13151

mark@NotGoogle.com writes:

> On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:29:14 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> writes:
>>
>>> On 17/04/2025 21:09, Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Why are you convinced of that? It is open source, so someone can
>>>> check the crypto. They may know about flaws in that. They may monitor
>>>> exit nodes and look for patterns.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you aware that the source code made public is sanitised while the
>>> binaries might be tweaked to catch people like John C browsing illegal
>>> porn sites.  Bad guys or government agencies know that people are not
>>> going to spend time to audit the source code for anything suspicious.
>>>
>>> Do you know how many separate files make the source code for the
>>> browser?
>>>
>>> China, Iran, Russia or North Korea (at government level) might spend
>>> time but that's for their own national security. They can't trust
>>> American or Israeli governments.
>>
>>I think what you have to do is consider who wants to get their hands on
>>your information, and which method is going to make it most difficult
>>for them. TOR may not be perfect but it is better than trusting your
>>ISP. And even a VPN provider is an ISP of some sort.
>
> You're right.
>
> This idiocy of the common comp user worrying incessantly about the
> gov't, etc., getting their hands on the info in their computer is
> ridiculous.

If that is true, then why this? :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill

Criminals use their neighbours' wifi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13154

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 21:14:12 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>mark@NotGoogle.com writes:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:29:14 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Kash Patel <kash.patel@fbi.gov> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 17/04/2025 21:09, Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why are you convinced of that? It is open source, so someone can
>>>>> check the crypto. They may know about flaws in that. They may monitor
>>>>> exit nodes and look for patterns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you aware that the source code made public is sanitised while the
>>>> binaries might be tweaked to catch people like John C browsing illegal
>>>> porn sites.  Bad guys or government agencies know that people are not
>>>> going to spend time to audit the source code for anything suspicious.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know how many separate files make the source code for the
>>>> browser?
>>>>
>>>> China, Iran, Russia or North Korea (at government level) might spend
>>>> time but that's for their own national security. They can't trust
>>>> American or Israeli governments.
>>>
>>>I think what you have to do is consider who wants to get their hands on
>>>your information, and which method is going to make it most difficult
>>>for them. TOR may not be perfect but it is better than trusting your
>>>ISP. And even a VPN provider is an ISP of some sort.
>>
>> You're right.
>>
>> This idiocy of the common comp user worrying incessantly about the
>> gov't, etc., getting their hands on the info in their computer is
>> ridiculous.
>
>If that is true, then why this? :
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill
>
>Criminals use their neighbours' wifi.

I don't use wi-fi for our home system. our system is wired. 

I live in the USA, and so far we ain't even close to how the rights of
the UK people have been almost totally destroyed.  I get that from
reading some of their newspapers on site. 

I was not about to read all that junko at that Wiki site.  A piece of
it:

"The Draft Communications Data Bill (nicknamed the Snoopers' Charter or
Snooper's Charter[1]) was draft legislation proposed by then Home
Secretary Theresa May in the United Kingdom which would require Internet
service providers and mobile phone companies to maintain records of each
user's internet browsing activity (including social media), email
correspondence, voice calls, internet gaming, and mobile phone messaging
services and store the records for 12 months. Retention of email and
telephone contact data for this time is already required by the Data
Retention Regulations 2014.[2] The anticipated cost was £1.8 billion. "

When things get that bad in the USA, I'll worry 'bout all that then.

I find it incredible that the nation which pretty much by itself held
Hitler at bay are now on their knees to the power mad elitists who rule
just about every aspect of UK's existence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13156 — 4chan.org hacked beyond repair!!

4chan.org left their site un-updated (unpatched) for years so that 
authorities can hack into it to retrieve data of people like John C and 
arrest them:

<https://youtu.be/GNT7uqpf-bQ?si=aVxLQZzPR3bNq4yn>

The site is not coming back for sometime until they can wipe the data 
completely and start again. It was hacked by SoyJaks on 15th April and 
it is still down. A simple pdf file brought it down but the question is 
why did they leave it unpatched for 10 years? What were they thinking 
about or how much were they paid by the authorities to leave it 
unpatched so that FBI cn hack into it to to track down John C type people?

So don't trust Open Source or free public forums. They are free for a 
reason. Don't trust free newsgroups either because they have to make 
money so how are they making money?

I bet Tor Browser is using VPN servers that are honey-trap and nobody 
knows them. FBI, CIA or even Russians, Chinese, or Iranians have 
interest to provide free VPN servers so that they can track down their 
own Citizens attacking them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13157 — Re: 4chan.org hacked beyond repair!!

Kash Patel trolled:
> 
> 4chan.org left their site un-updated (unpatched) for years so that 
> authorities can hack into it to retrieve data of people like John C and 
> arrest them:

And just exactly what would they be arresting me for?

> <https://youtu.be/GNT7uqpf-bQ?si=aVxLQZzPR3bNq4yn>
> 
> The site is not coming back for sometime until they can wipe the data 
> completely and start again. It was hacked by SoyJaks on 15th April and 
> it is still down. A simple pdf file brought it down but the question is 
> why did they leave it unpatched for 10 years? What were they thinking 
> about or how much were they paid by the authorities to leave it 
> unpatched so that FBI cn hack into it to to track down John C type people?

And just what, exactly, is that person like?

> So don't trust Open Source or free public forums. They are free for a 
> reason. Don't trust free newsgroups either because they have to make 
> money so how are they making money?
> 
> I bet Tor Browser is using VPN servers that are honey-trap and nobody 
> knows them. FBI, CIA or even Russians, Chinese, or Iranians have 
> interest to provide free VPN servers so that they can track down their 
> own Citizens attacking them.

Crawl back under your rock, you idiot.

-- 
John C.

I filter out all crossposts and garbage from trolls like Kash Patel.

Take back Microsoft from India.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13098

On 4/15/2025 9:40 PM, Nobody wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 23:44:34 +0000, D <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> (using Tor Browser 14.0.9) ... this appeared on the tor browser home page
> 
> <Severely sliced/hacked/disintegrated>
> 
> And this has relevance to Firefox?

The Tor Browser uses Firefox as its graphical user interface (GUI).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13103

On 16.04.25 17:41, Retirednoguilt wrote:
> On 4/15/2025 9:40 PM, Nobody wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 23:44:34 +0000, D <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (using Tor Browser 14.0.9) ... this appeared on the tor browser home page
>>
>> <Severely sliced/hacked/disintegrated>
>>
>> And this has relevance to Firefox?
> 
> The Tor Browser uses Firefox as its graphical user interface (GUI).

... and almost everything else under FF's hood.

-- 
"Ave! Morituri te salutant!"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web