Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #14299 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-26 05:52 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-09-02 04:02 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox
Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-26 05:52 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Xavier M <xmendizabal@euskaltel.com> - 2025-07-26 08:29 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-26 20:47 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-07-26 17:56 +1000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-26 17:27 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-27 07:05 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-27 11:02 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> - 2025-07-26 15:49 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-07-26 16:20 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> - 2025-07-26 17:07 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Randy Jones <randolphJones@randyjones.com> - 2025-07-26 19:06 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-28 19:39 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-29 22:41 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-29 18:41 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-30 01:58 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-30 04:03 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-30 07:03 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-02 17:58 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-07 11:12 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-07 11:34 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-07 20:46 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-07 13:09 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-07 21:09 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-07 20:21 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-07 15:08 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-09 21:37 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-08 15:56 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-09 02:54 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-29 19:13 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-07-30 06:59 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-02 17:58 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-07 03:50 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-08 15:50 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-08 14:11 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-08 16:56 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-09 01:45 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-09 12:28 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-09 11:49 +0100
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-09 19:28 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-12 20:14 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-13 20:40 +0200
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-14 17:39 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-18 00:22 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-18 07:04 +0100
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-18 17:01 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-08-18 18:13 +0100
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-19 10:41 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-18 16:43 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-19 15:18 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-20 19:14 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-21 04:14 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-23 17:14 +0000
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-29 16:46 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2025-08-29 16:58 -0700
Re: Is there a de-mozzilla'd FIrefox (similar to degoogled chromium)? Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-09-02 04:02 +0000
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10733bj$14da$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14401 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 11:34:57 -0700, Mike Easter wrote :
> We can use our conversation here as an example of something.
It's certainly a noble endeavor, and quite apropos to this newsgroup, to
come up with a DIY to make the most private Mozilla-based web browser.
> First, as a 'basis' of the non-privacy end of things; I don't use a
> privacy browser at all. I also use an NSP which not only requires reg,
> it also requires payment annually. OK fine.
While my WISP doesn't require payment, he knows where I live, so he knows
who I am, &, if he maintains logs, he can rat me out to any TLA who asks.
However, few of us require Osama bin Laden style anonymity, where, for the
most part, just calling in a bomb threat to Memorial Hall at Harvard using
a Mozilla-based TOR browser should be enough privacy for the bulk of us.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/failing-grade-alleged-harvard-bomb-hoaxer-needed-more-tor-cover-2D11767028>
That guy would have gotten away with it if he only hadn't used Harvard's
own Wi-Fi network (and if he didn't admit that he was the one who did it).
<https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/tor-harvard-bomb-suspect/>
a. Eldo Kim, 20, during exam times in December 2013
b. Used Mozilla-based Tor to anonymize his internet activity
c. Sent emails via Guerrilla Mail, a disposable email service
d. Threatening that a bomb was placed in Memorial Hall
e. Just before his scheduled exam in Memorial Hall
(Which, I know well as it has to be the ugliest building on earth.)
How was he caught?
A. A TLA (i.e., the FBI) traced Tor usage on Harvard's Wi-Fi network
B. Kim's identity was linked through network logs and exam timing
C. He confessed to sending the threats (& later graduated from Harvard)
> You instead are using blueworldhosting as your NSP to post here and like
> most other people including me, do not expose your IP to the 'world' via
> the NSP nor your name and email. OK fine. We aren't that different.
> Your NSP has excellent retention and no reg.
For obvious & well-known fundamental reasons, I never connect to any nntp
server via my "real" IP address - nor even my "real" system clock or TZone.
> If someone wants to 'uncover' your persona, they would start w/ the IP
> you connect to blueworldhosting and the 'clarity' of your handwriting
> which I have observed in your messages for years.
They'd have to go to the VPN admin, where I use a variety of free public no
registration VPN servers around the world - but they DO know my real IP.
> I don't think it would be that hard to uncover you; not that I am any
> kind of fan of dox/ing, but it could be part of a conversation about
> privacy that involves who is the/your adversary and who isn't.
I post where I live (Santa Cruz Mountains) all the time, and my carrier
(T-Mobile) and even post my bill ($100/month for 6 devices), etc., so I
would agree that it's not hard to uncover who I am.
Once my life was threatened on Usenet by a certain "Rod Speed" in a.h.r and
again (less obviously so) by "nospam" in m.p.m.i, which I reported to the
FBI, so the FBI knows who I am and how I post my articles to Usenet.
I even stumbled across abandoned guns used for a murder, unbeknownst to me,
a while ago, so I've been investigated for murder as the RP (being the RP
turns out to be interesting in and of itself in how you're implicated).
> My 'philosophy' is that I don't have adversaries who need to know who I
> am and so I don't have to go to any trouble for 'severe privacy'.
My adversary is Google. Microsoft. Apple. Meta. Amazon. et al.
But, I'm technically compensated by Amazon (who gives me "free stuff" to
review; so Amazon has my W2 form, which has my SSN, so they got me 'good!
<https://amazon.com/vine/about>
> To me, the only people who need severe privacy are criminals and those
> who are actively fighting against an oppressive state actor; that is, if
> you do dev a strong adversary w/ some kind of power, you have a problem.
Luckily you added "severe privacy", as if you just used the regular privacy
word, that's something *EVERYONE* is entitled to. Basic privacy is a right.
> Typically the people who discuss privacy in such as the privacy groups
> don't actually *state* why they are so interested to go to so much
> trouble and inconvenience. I do NOT believe that people do that just
> for the fun or challenge of it, but I also do NOT know what other
> reason/s they could possibly have besides the ones I mention here.
"Nobody needs to justify why they 'need' a right: the burden of
justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right."
Edward Snowden, Reddit AMA, May 21, 2015
<https://www.mic.com/articles/119602/in-one-quote-edward-snowden-summed-up-why-our-privacy-is-worth-fighting-for>
Snowden often compares privacy to free speech. Just because you're not
exercising it at the moment doesn't mean it's not essential. Anyone asking
you to justify why you want privacy has to first justify why they feel you
have no right to free speech.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mfkfgfFidehU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14400 |
Mike Easter wrote: > There is no such thing as a free ride when you impose all of the > restrictions you have decided upon. Completely free anonymity on the internet comes at a price to someone. Various providers who can 'easily' accommodate anonymity w/ their services do so for whatever their own 'personal' reasons. Free/open NSPs, free mail2news, a 'certain amount' of free VPN, free tor. There's not much (hardly any) free connectivity; there used to be a free local dialup provider but that went away, there is some free wifi and it is possible to 'steal' some wifi. So, given that it is likely /easier/ to anonymize payment, it is /perhaps/ easier to anonymize one's whole persona at a relatively low cost, than to try to get some kind of 'perfect' free anonymity online. I'm frugal, but I'm also practical. I'm also a skeptic; watch out for those who are providing you a free product, you may BE the product. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10734lg$88u$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14402 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 13:09:50 -0700, Mike Easter wrote : > Completely free anonymity on the internet comes at a price to someone. All your points are valid. I think there are free services which are truly free, just as I received a handful of phones from T-Mobile which turned out to be (almost) free. I had to pay the 10% California imputed sales tax on the free phone. <https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract <https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15/mo iPhone,$0/mo Android <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 fees Speaking of paying taxes on imputed costs for free things, Amazon picked me for Vine Gold for the reason that I own critical thought processes, but, those free products also come at a cost since you have to pay income taxes. <https://i.postimg.cc/k5FYJQc7/amazon-score.jpg> <https://i.postimg.cc/3x3nL4h6/amazon-trust.jpg> <https://i.postimg.cc/L6jnqvHj/amazon-vine-home.jpg> <https://i.postimg.cc/sfvLPfxL/tax-implications.jpg> My point is that we have to weigh each and every "free" item to see what the "true" cost is of that free item - where loss of privacy is a cost. > Various providers who can 'easily' accommodate anonymity w/ their > services do so for whatever their own 'personal' reasons. Free/open > NSPs, free mail2news, a 'certain amount' of free VPN, free tor. Well, people do "volunteer" to be VPN servers & TOR servers, although I'm sure every TLA in the book also volunteers to be those free servers too! Lots of free VPNs out there, for example... Lots of free NNTP servers too. Certainly lots of free web browsers. And lots of free browser extensions. Each one we'd have to look at in detail to find out the true cost to us. > There's not much (hardly any) free connectivity; there used to be a free > local dialup provider but that went away, there is some free wifi and it > is possible to 'steal' some wifi. I used NetZero until they started charging around the turn of the century. They're still in business. But the era of free unlimited ISP is over. Still... I use Google Voice (on iOS. NEVER ON ANDROID!) for free calls. Sidenote: Given iOS has the worst privacy of any mobile device, it's interesting that Google Voice has more privacy on iOS than on Android. This goes to show that with privacy, we have to look at each situation. Only after diving deeply into each situation can we assess true costs. > So, given that it is likely /easier/ to anonymize payment, it is > /perhaps/ easier to anonymize one's whole persona at a relatively low > cost, than to try to get some kind of 'perfect' free anonymity online. I think this is a worthwhile endeavor to create a "burner persona" which can "pay for things" on the net. The problem is how to buy with crypto? I don't know how. Do you? It would be a worthwhile DIY tutorial for how to buy Mozilla extensions using a burner persona, with burner email & burner crypto currency. I'm not the guy to write it as I've never used crypto in my life. I don't even know the first step. Do you? > I'm frugal, but I'm also practical. I'm also a skeptic; watch out for > those who are providing you a free product, you may BE the product. As I said above, the Apple religious zealots always tell me there must have been a catch with my free Android phones, and yet, I still have that phone which T-Mobile gave me for free in April of 2021 (they gave everyone in the USA on postpaid accounts the same choice that I had for the free phone). I paid the California sales tax on the MSRP and that was the only cost. People can't believe it. But this only goes to show my point about free. Every single situation where something is free is different in costs. You have to look at each and every situation to find if there is a cost. Anyone who makes blanket statements such as "you are the product" doesn't understand those costs, since you're the product anyway, e.g., if you don't put "optout" (in the past) or "nomap" today on the end of your AP SSID. Even if you broadcast your SSID, then you are the product since wardrivers don't care about your SSID having an optout parameter in the name. Privacy is much like hygeine. It's not one thing. It's a lot of things. Each comes with a cost. But the cost is different for each action you take. Since people like truisms such as "you are the product", my favorite truism is "only intelligent people have privacy", which underscores my point that every situation is different when it comes to being private on the net. In summary, all your privacy points are valid where what would be a great outcome is if someone wrote a DIY for making a Mozilla-based web browser as private as possible (with or without registration/payment privacy issues).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10731sh$15rn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14400 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 11:12:16 -0700, Mike Easter wrote : >> There are two golden rules for privacy on the net, and one is to never >> register for anything (the other is never pay with a traceable method). >> >> Anyone doing either of those forbidden actions (especially nowadays with >> even throwaway emails requiring phone or a second email validation) will >> never stand a snowball's chance in hell to have any privacy, even with VPN. > > While I choose not to actually /do/ it, I have done some 'thought > experiments' in resolving what is 'troubling' privacy above. It's a worthwhile task to find the "most private" Mozilla-based browser, and then, to DIY it via extensions & settings to make it "more private" without giving away privacy in a required registration/payment process! If anyone knows how to PAY for extensions privately, please let us know. > You need an anonymous persona. There are a number of ways to create > that; I think the most practical approach is the concept of a 'burner' > phone, so solve the 'connectivity' problem along w/ the anonymous > persona problem; that is, first step. In my tests, registration was required if you want to add to Firefox some VPN extensions such as proton VPN, WindScribe, TunnelBear & Urban VPN. Given you can't even use those extensions in a Mozilla-based web browser with that registration, it's a fair topic of how to register with privacy. If anyone knows how to PAY for extensions privately, please let us know. > The other thing you need is anonymous 'finances' in the form of a > cryptocoin which aids anonymizing. Personally I haven't dev/d a full > 'background' on the coins, but I don't much like the ones which are too > speculative. You can't really 'get' a true stablecoin which is also > anonymizing, but you can get coins which /are/ anonymizing and much less > speculative than such as bitcoin. As noted, some Mozilla-based privacy extensions require payment, which compounds the privacy problem enormously - where perhaps this is the way. But how many of us have actually used a crypto coin in our lives? I haven't. Have you? Has anyone? How does it work to pay for a Mozilla-based extension with cryptocoin? > Since this thread is *actually* more of a 'severe' privacy issue than it > is a 'browser' issue, except that the thread is about wanting a Ffx type > browser (if possible) AND severe privacy, you HAVE TO solve the severe > privacy first, and that requires an identity/persona w/ the ability to > pay for things. There is no such thing as a free ride when you impose > all of the restrictions you have decided upon. If you want to use the better-funded extensions, which require payment, and the more reliable extensions (which require identification), I do agree if you're going to register for and/or buy privacy extensions, then you must first solve the registration problem and the payment problem beforehand - both of which - I agree - are hard to solve while maintaining privacy. The way I get around that very real registration/payment-privacy conundrum is to never register/pay for privacy-based Mozilla browser extensions. Luckily, I believe privacy is possible with those restrictions, and, in fact, perhaps more possible than if we registered/paid for the extensions. But it's contextual so we'd have to take each & every case in detail. If anyone knows how to PAY for extensions privately, please let us know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mfkmfiFjnh9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14403 |
Marion wrote: > But how many of us have actually used a crypto coin in our lives? > I haven't. > > Have you? I have not. But I have enough 'academic' interest in this privacy business that I would consider 'devising' an anonymous persona, including that persona having a cellphone/number/account. There is also a problem about strategies to use that coin to pay for things; not all useful providers accept the type of coin one might want; you have to have one of /these/ kinds of coins to pay for one of /those/ kinds of coins because the provider doesn't accept one of them. So, while you are trying to puzzle out the free browser privacy business, I'm trying to figure out paying for a connectivity provider for/with a bogus persona. But, 'my' topic or interest is OFF topic for this Ffx group. For some reason, it also seems off-topic in the privacy groups because those people don't even like to use conventional agents to post to conventional NSPs, so we are very far apart in our interests. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1078f2g$dp5$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14407 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:08:50 -0700, Mike Easter wrote : >> But how many of us have actually used a crypto coin in our lives? >> I haven't. >> >> Have you? > > I have not. Me neither. But there was a time when none of us used Usenet, but we learned. And a time when none of us knew what VPN was, but we learned. And a time when none of us knew AI but we are learning, etc. So maybe it's time to learn how to buy one dollar's worth of crypto. That's a future tutorial I will likely write - but that's for later. > But I have enough 'academic' interest in this privacy > business that I would consider 'devising' an anonymous persona, > including that persona having a cellphone/number/account. I think it's a great idea, to create an anonymous persona. a. Burner phone b. Burner email c. Burner crypto Once you have the phone, the burner email becomes much simpler. But I don't have a clue what privacy is entailed for burner crypto. Probably a burner OS? (e.g., Tails?) (running inside a burner VM?) That would be a great privacy tutorial for Windows/Linux/Mac users! Tutorial for creating a burner persona on the Internet > There is also a problem about strategies to use that coin to pay for > things; not all useful providers accept the type of coin one might want; > you have to have one of /these/ kinds of coins to pay for one of /those/ > kinds of coins because the provider doesn't accept one of them. Understood. Well, actually, I don't understand crypto at all, but I can imagine that some crypto is more fluid than others for buying stuff. You also need that stuff "shipped" to you somehow, if it's not virtual stuff (like apps but even then, the apps have to run in a burner OS). > So, while you are trying to puzzle out the free browser privacy > business, I'm trying to figure out paying for a connectivity provider > for/with a bogus persona. I think it's a GREAT idea to learn how to create a burner persona. As I said, I'll look into it, but for now, I have a bunch of projects. There would be levels of burner, from high heat to just simmering, because, for example, a physical burner phone you throw away after use is different than a simulated burner phone via TextNow, Hushed, or Google Voice. Luckily, we can factory reset the burner phone, which is kind of a medium heat versus high heat being throwing it over a bridge, and low heat being just running nothing but TextNow on that burner phone & then factory resetting each time it's used and then getting a new TextNow number. There is, of course, the problem of cell tower triangulation, and paying for the cellular service (with the crypto, of course) in this sequence. > But, 'my' topic or interest is OFF topic for this Ffx group. I think privacy is on topic for any software that touches the Internet. But I agree that the browser is the topic for this particular newsgroup. > For some > reason, it also seems off-topic in the privacy groups because those > people don't even like to use conventional agents to post to > conventional NSPs, so we are very far apart in our interests. I don't really understand any newsgroup other than the operating system newsgroups I frequent, but I did add "alt.privacy" to this thread but I do not think there is anyone there listening so it's just us Firefox guys. :) In summary, I think it's apropos for this newsgroup to discuss a DIY privacy browser which starts with one of the Mozilla browsers, most likely Mullvad or LibreFox just as it would be for Chromium-based browsers to start with the likes of Brave or Ungoogled Chromium. I'm not sure if it's worth digging into WebKit based browsers as we already know from the Tor folks that WebKit can never provide security or anonymity, which is funny when you think of how Apple advertises it. However, as for your rather valid privacy project, I think it's apropos for each of the three operating system newsgroups to set up Tails inside a VM. Then, once you have Tails inside a VM, you add the privacy VPN. Luckily that's trivial. Only then do you add this DIY privacy browser! But first, I have to finish the privacy browser on Chromium since that turned out to be easier (surprisingly) than it seems to be for Mozilla. Then I'll write the tutorial for the Mozilla-based DIY privacy browser. Later, (much later?) we'll create the burner persona you seek. Work with me on that - but we'll have to take it over to the OS newsgroups. From: Marion <marion@facts.com> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-11 Subject: Long term project: Creating a privacy-based disposable burner persona on your desktop PC Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 21:35:34 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1078ev5$csp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> Article Lookup Engine: <https://al.howardknight.net/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 15:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfme0rFshspU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14369 |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 07:03:02 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote: > There are two golden rules for privacy on the net, and one is to never > register for anything (the other is never pay with a traceable method). What about fingerprinting? Not only your browser can be unique, but also the way you type. <https://amiunique.org/> (results in a server error atm) <https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/> -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1076d8p$brm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14415 |
On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:56:54 +0200, s|b wrote :
> What about fingerprinting? Not only your browser can be unique, but also
> the way you type.
>
> <https://amiunique.org/>
> (results in a server error atm)
>
> <https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/>
You have two great ideas there, where one is another anti-fingerprinting
extension while the other is how to test if fingerprints are unique.
Like you, the <https://amiunique.org/> comes up for me with an error.
The <https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/> site says the following:
Protecting you from fingerprinting?
your browser has a randomized fingerprint
Your browser fingerprint has been randomized
among the 323,619 tested in the past 45 days.
Although sophisticated adversaries may still
be able to track you to some extent, randomization
provides a very strong protection against tracking
companies trying to fingerprint your browser.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a
fingerprint that conveys at least 17.33 bits of
identifying information.
It would be nice to compile all the test sites together so others
can benefit when they want to test their browsers for privacy holes.
=== Privacy Test Sites ===
== Header & Request Inspection ==
<https://requestbin.com/>
<https://httpbin.org/headers>
<https://http_test.php/> (custom/local test)
== Fingerprint & Tracking Tests ==
<https://amiunique.org/>
<https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/>
<https://panopticlick.eff.org/> (legacy version of Cover Your Tracks)
<https://fingerprintjs.com/demo/>
<https://webkay.robinlinus.com/>
<https://privacy.net/analyzer/>
== Browser Privacy Audits ==
<https://privacytests.org/>
== IP & DNS Leak Tests ==
<https://ipleak.net/>
<https://dnsleaktest.com/>
<https://browserleaks.com/ip>
<https://browserleaks.com/dns>
== WebRTC Leak Tests ==
<https://browserleaks.com/webrtc>
<https://www.expressvpn.com/webrtc-leak-test>
== General IP & Location Check ==
<https://whatismyipaddress.com/>
<https://iplocation.net/>
<https://ipinfo.io/>
== VPN Leak & Privacy Tests ==
<https://vpntesting.com/> (Comprehensive VPN leak tests)
<https://www.cloudwards.net/vpn-test-guide/> (DNS, IP, WebRTC leak guide)
<https://proxyar.com/vpn-ip-geolocation-tester/> (Geolocation & VPN
detection)
== Miscellaneous Privacy Tools ==
<https://whoer.net/>
<https://www.deviceinfo.me/>
<https://www.doileak.com/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <jock@soccer.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-29 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0tvi8kdrbfk3ur6pg5slo25s21dm8lcpa2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14365 |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 01:58:20 -0000 (UTC), Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 18:41:21 -0700, Nobody wrote : > > >>>> Has anyone on this ng ever gotten a VPN extension to work with LibreWolf >>> >>>Since I couldn't get any VPN extension to work with a privacy based web >>>browser (such as Mullvad or LibreWolf), I temporarily gave up on Mozilla. >>> >> >> So what does the avoidance dance (killed in answer) therefore have to >> do with Firefox? > >I have no idea what your question is trying to ascertain, so I'm guessing >that you're asking what LibreWolf or Mullvad have to do with Firefox? If ye dinnae wanna use Firefox... Go Away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 06:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106cfss$1j3$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14367 |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 19:13:36 -0700, Nobody wrote :
>>> So what does the avoidance dance (killed in answer) therefore have to
>>> do with Firefox?
>>
>>I have no idea what your question is trying to ascertain, so I'm guessing
>>that you're asking what LibreWolf or Mullvad have to do with Firefox?
>
> If ye dinnae wanna use Firefox... Go Away.
I'm not sure what the person who sent that infantile response expects,
but there is nothing wrong with looking for a de-mozilla'd Firefox.
When we have the tutorial written, thousands of people can benefit simply
by clicking on the cut-and-paste steps to easily build a privacy browser.
The closest we can find is LibreWolf, but it really *hates* VPN extensions.
But, to be purposefully helpful, what's really nice about LibreWolf is...
a. Zero data collection
b. Telemetry is disabled
c. Hardened privacy settings by default
d. Google integration is removed
e. Customizability (except you can't really add a VPN extension)
f. Open-source ethos
LibreWolf is essentially Firefox with the same spirit as Ungoogled Chromium
with no corporate tracking, no unnecessary features, just pure browsing.
If only LibreWolf worked with VPN extensions. Sigh. It doesn't.
The problem seems to be the way the OCSP stuff is done under the hood.
I haven't yet tried Arkenfox user.js templates to Firefox yet though.
a. Arkenfox also disables telemetry
b. It blocks persistent storage (like cache & cookies)
c. It also standardizes fingerprinting vectors (e.g., screen size)
d. It also enforces HTTPS-only mode (and disables WebRTC leaks)
e. And it even includes an updater script & override system
This is useful to customize without breaking the core configuration.
The main problem with Arkenfox is that it too conflicts with VPN
extensions, such as with WebRTC which both Hide.ME & Arkenfox do.
However, at the moment, Arkenfox seems to be the best candidate for a
roll-your-own lightweight de-mozillafied browser that can handle VPN.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106ljk8$25db$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14368 |
> If only LibreWolf worked with VPN extensions. Sigh. It doesn't.
> The problem seems to be the way the OCSP stuff is done under the hood.
HELPFUL VPN UPDATE:
I've been testing VPN extensions, one by one, and so far, they all work
better in the beginning than after a few days, which is really odd.
Nonetheless, just to update the group at large, here're VPN's I'm testing.
C:\> for /d %i in (*) do @for /d %j in ("%i\*") do @echo %j
hidemevpn\ohjocgmpmlfahafbipehkhbaacoemojp
hiddenbatvpn\bbmdbddokjkdlcicblahoeofpjkbeneo
xvpn\flaeifplnkmoagonpbjmedjcadegiigl
tunnelbearvpn\omdakjcmkglenbhjadbccaookpfjihpa
securefreeedgevpn\mikenegoldghfdcmpchhobaabgkaikdj
urbanvpn\eppiocemhmnlbhjplcgkofciiegomcon
vpnly\lneaocagcijjdpkcabeanfpdbmapcjjg
fail\hotspotshieldvpn
fail\itopvpn
fail\protonvpn
1clickvpn\pphgdbgldlmicfdkhondlafkiomnelnk
1vpn\akcocjjpkmlniicdeemdceeajlmoabhg
bandwidth_limits\windscribevpn
standalone\support_openvpn
standalone\nosupport_openvpn
browsec\omghfjlpggmjjaagoclmmobgdodcjboh
setupvpn\oofgbpoabipfcfjapgnbbjjaenockbdp
Note that hotspotshiled, itovpn & protonvpn failed miserably, mainly
because they don't meet the basic no-registration free no ads criteria.
Windscribe VPN will only be employed if nothing else works (not likely).
Caveat: I've used system-wide free public VPN for so many years I can't
count, and I used Opera/Epic VPN (actually) proxy for as many years too.
But this is my first time using these free VPN extensions, which are flaky.
As always, if you know more than I do about building a mozilla-based DIY
privacy web browser, please add value so that every post adds knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-07 03:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10717q4$20qo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14386 |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 17:58:33 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote : > ... to update the group at large, here are VPN's I'm testing. TESTING UPDATE Building your own DIY privacy Mozilla browser Since Mozilla browsers were problematic, I changed my plans to first create a DIY privacy browser in the Chromium land, and THEN to move to Mozilla. I've almost completed the initial tests of what VPN extensions worked and which failed, along with the privacy-based extensions that worked well. Here is the current status, but bear in mind the experimental results have to be moved to the most un-mozilla'd of the mozilla-based web browsers. Hence, likely the Mozilla test will be to replace Brave with MullVad, and then to replace Ungoogled Chromium with LibreWolf (that's the plan anyway). === cut here for proposed chromium to mozilla test sequence === BUILD-YOUR-OWN DIY PRIVACY BROWSER - TESTING UPDATE Every day I test more free, no-registration, no-ad privacy extensions. I'm focusing mostly on Brave for now because it's easier to update than UC. Luckily, archiving browser extensions is simple and straightforward: %localappdata%\BraveSoftware\Brave-Browser\User Data\Default\Extensions\ With Brave, you can trick tabs into loading in the foreground to speed them up. Most users won't want this, but it's useful to know these options. "C:\Program Files\BraveSoftware\Brave-Browser\Application\brave.exe" --disable-background-timer-throttling --disable-backgrounding-occluded-windows --disable-renderer-backgrounding Here are the privacy extensions I have tested which work well together. As reported by <brave://system> which creates this list below for you. mnojpmjdmbbfmejpflffifhffcmidifd : Brave : version 1_0_0 bhchdcejhohfmigjafbampogmaanbfkg : User-Agent Switcher : version 0_6_4 cafckninonjkogajnihihlnnimmkndgf : Disable HTML5 Autoplay : version 0_9_3 cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm : uBlock Origin : version 1_65_0 fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh : Cookie AutoDelete : version 3_8_2 fhkphphbadjkepgfljndicmgdlndmoke : Font FP Defender : version 0_1_6 fjkmabmdepjfammlpliljpnbhleegehm : WebRTC Control : version 0_3_3 hhnhplojcganfmfimkeboiipphklcbih : Location Guard V3 : version 3_0_0 hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin : Referer Control : version 1_35 ikclbgejgcbdlhjmckecmdljlpbhmbmf : HTTPS Everywhere : version 1_0 jaoafjdoijdconemdmodhbfpianehlon : Skip Redirect : version 2_3_6 jjbikklopibeimjelkohlldbjcdnofei : StayInTab : version 1_0 lckanjgmijmafbedllaakclkaicjfmnk : ClearURLs : version 1_26_0 ldpochfccmkkmhdbclfhpagapcfdljkj : Decentraleyes : version 3_0_0 mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai : Chrome PDF Viewer : version 1 njdfdhgcmkocbgbhcioffdbicglldapd : LocalCDN : version 2_6_79 njkmjblmcfiobddjgebnoeldkjcplfjb : Trace : version 3_0_6 nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd : Canvas Blocker : version 0_2_2 pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp : Privacy Badger : version 2025_5_30 Here is a quick summary of how these extensions impact privacy: Brave: Built-in ad/tracker blocking, privacy-focused browser User-Agent Switcher: Masks browser identity to reduce tracking Disable HTML5 Autoplay: Stops media autoplay, reduces fingerprinting uBlock Origin: Blocks ads, trackers, malicious domains Cookie AutoDelete: Deletes cookies after tabs close Font FP Defender: Randomizes font data to prevent fingerprinting WebRTC Control: Prevents IP leaks via WebRTC Location Guard: Spoofs or hides geolocation data Referer Control: Limits referer headers to reduce tracking HTTPS Everywhere: Forces HTTPS when available Skip Redirect: Bypasses tracking redirects StayInTab: Prevents tab switching, reduces behavioral tracking ClearURLs: Removes tracking elements from URLs Decentraleyes: Blocks CDN-based tracking with local resources Chrome PDF Viewer: Displays PDFs without external viewers LocalCDN: Replaces CDN resources locally Trace: Blocks fingerprinting and tracking techniques Canvas Blocker: Prevents canvas fingerprinting Privacy Badger: Learns and blocks invisible trackers These VPN extensions failed for various reasons: hotspotshieldvpn : Removed from Chrome Web Store (2025-08-04) itopvpn : Removed from Chrome Web Store (2022-12-09) protonvpn : Requires registration (not privacy-friendly) urbanvpn : Works briefly, then requires registration hidemevpn : Flaky behavior after short use hiddenbatvpn : Exposes your IP address (!?) tunnelbearvpn : Requires registration windscribevpn : Requires registration These VPNs passed the login/ad/IP tests but failed YouTube access: xvpn : Encrypts traffic, hides IP, may log metadata 1clickvpn : Encrypts traffic, hides IP, claims no logs 1vpn : SSL encryption, blocks WebRTC, no-logs policy setupvpn : Encrypts traffic, collects usage info vpnly : Swiss-based, AES-256, strict no-logs policy securefreeedgevpn : Encrypts traffic, hides IP, no login browsec : Encrypts traffic, hides IP, unclear logging policy Note: Browsec was the only VPN that passed the YouTube test in addition to the IP obfuscation & no-registration tests. To follow in my footsteps, I'd recommend these simple steps. 1. Install privacy extensions in Brave 2. Copy unpacked folders to your software archive 3. In Ungoogled Chromium, enable "Developer mode" 4. Click "Load unpacked" to sideload each extension 5. Compare with Opera/Epic privacy browsers Contributions welcome to refine these test findings. Note that this needs to be repeated for Mozilla browsers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfmdjvFshspU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14397 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 03:50:28 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote: > ikclbgejgcbdlhjmckecmdljlpbhmbmf : HTTPS Everywhere : version 1_0 <https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere> <quote> You no longer need HTTPS Everywhere to set HTTPS by default! Major browsers now offer native support for an HTTPS only mode. </quote> -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10750jc$27r2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14414 |
On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:50:01 +0200, s|b wrote : >> ikclbgejgcbdlhjmckecmdljlpbhmbmf : HTTPS Everywhere : version 1_0 > > <https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere> > > <quote> > > You no longer need HTTPS Everywhere to set HTTPS by default! Major > browsers now offer native support for an HTTPS only mode. That's a good point. I agree. We no longer need HTTPS Everywhere. Thanks for doublechecking the list! Digging into what the EFF says, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which developed the extension, officially retired it in 2022 because modern browsers now offer built-in support for HTTPS-only mode. Now that HTTPS is nearly universal and browsers enforce it natively, the extension┬ job is largely done. All that may be left is to just enable HTTPS-only mode in the web browser. I'll remove it from the privacy list based on that useful information. bhchdcejhohfmigjafbampogmaanbfkg : User-Agent Switcher and Manager : version 0_6_4 cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm : uBlock Origin : version 1_65_0 fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh : Cookie AutoDelete : version 3_8_2 fhkphphbadjkepgfljndicmgdlndmoke : Font Fingerprint Defender : version 0_1_6 fjkmabmdepjfammlpliljpnbhleegehm : WebRTC Control : version 0_3_3 hhnhplojcganfmfimkeboiipphklcbih : Location Guard (V3) : version 3_0_0 hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin : Referer Control : version 1_35 jaoafjdoijdconemdmodhbfpianehlon : Skip Redirect : version 2_3_6 jjbikklopibeimjelkohlldbjcdnofei : StayInTab : version 1_0 lckanjgmijmafbedllaakclkaicjfmnk : ClearURLs : version 1_26_0 ldpochfccmkkmhdbclfhpagapcfdljkj : Decentraleyes : version 3_0_0 njdfdhgcmkocbgbhcioffdbicglldapd : LocalCDN : version 2_6_79 njkmjblmcfiobddjgebnoeldkjcplfjb : Trace - Online Tracking Protection : version 3_0_6 nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd : Canvas Blocker - Fingerprint Protect : version 0_2_2 omghfjlpggmjjaagoclmmobgdodcjboh : Browsec VPN - Free VPN for Chrome : version 3_92_2 pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp : Privacy Badger : version 2025_5_30 Any others?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-08 16:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfmhh6Ft1f3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14416 |
On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 14:11:56 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote: > Any others? I already stated this in another posting: what about fingerprinting? -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107697u$4f1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14419 |
On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 16:56:49 +0200, s|b wrote : > I already stated this in another posting: what about fingerprinting? Thanks for that suggestion, where I don't know if there's a single well-known commonly suggested "fingerprinting prevention" extension. These Extensions Provide Partial or Direct Fingerprinting Protection ----------------------------------------------- User-Agent Switcher and Manager : Partial - spoofs user-agent string uBlock Origin : Indirect - blocks tracking scripts Font Fingerprint Defender : Direct - adds noise to font data WebRTC Control : Direct - prevents IP leaks via WebRTC Location Guard : Partial - spoofs geolocation Referer Control : Partial - limits referer leakage Canvas Blocker : Direct - alters canvas fingerprint data Trace : Direct - protects from multiple vectors Privacy Badger : Partial - blocks some fingerprinting These Extensions Help with Privacy but Not Fingerprinting Directly ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cookie AutoDelete : deletes cookies only Skip Redirect : bypasses redirect pages StayInTab : tab management only ClearURLs : removes URL tracking params Decentraleyes : serves local CDN resources LocalCDN : similar to Decentraleyes Browsec VPN : Partial f'print'g - masks IP address These Are Apparently The Most Effective for Fingerprinting Protection -------------------------------------------- Canvas Blocker Font Fingerprint Defender Trace WebRTC Control Googling, I see there are two fingerprinting-specific extensions I can add but I need to test them out before recommending them on this newsgroup. Fingerprinting-Prevention Extensions To Be Tested ------------------------------------------------ 1. All Fingerprint Defender Protects canvas, WebGL, font, and audio fingerprinting Adds noise to fingerprint data and refreshes it per page load Includes whitelist support and canvas fingerprint display Free, no registration, no ads 2. CthulhuJs (Anti-Fingerprint) Obfuscates canvas, audio, WebGL, fonts, plugins, timezone, and more Generates random fingerprints with tab-level isolation Offers persistent settings and flexible switching Free, no registration, no ads Apparently All Fingerprint Defender is simple and effective. Apparently CthulhuJs offers more control and advanced features. Any others?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 12:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfom6rF9j0hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14436 |
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 01:45:35 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote: > > I already stated this in another posting: what about fingerprinting? > Thanks for that suggestion, where I don't know if there's a single > well-known commonly suggested "fingerprinting prevention" extension. What I actually meant was: aren't you making your browser more and more /unique/ by using all those add-ons? I feel like it's only going to make your browser more and more unique and recognizable, so it would make fingerprinting easier. I've read Brave Browser is a good browser for users concerned about fingerprinting. And IIRC Tor Browser opens in the same size windows every time to remain 'less unique'. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfondrF9eufU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14438 |
s|b wrote: > Marion wrote: > >> I don't know if there's a single >> well-known commonly suggested "fingerprinting prevention" extension. > > What I actually meant was: aren't you making your browser more and more > /unique/ by using all those add-ons? I feel like it's only going to make > your browser more and more unique and recognizable, so it would make > fingerprinting easier. Websites can't [directly] tell which add-ons you have installed. IME it's almost impossible to not show a unique fingerprint ID. I've tried making changes, such as finding the "most unique" identifiers and getting my FF to use "less unique" alternatives, such as a popular Chrome version user-agent, making my language preference and location USA rather than UK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10787fv$1q1g$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14439 |
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 11:49:31 +0100, Andy Burns wrote : >>> I don't know if there's a single >>> well-known commonly suggested "fingerprinting prevention" extension. >> >> What I actually meant was: aren't you making your browser more and more >> /unique/ by using all those add-ons? I feel like it's only going to make >> your browser more and more unique and recognizable, so it would make >> fingerprinting easier. > Websites can't [directly] tell which add-ons you have installed. > > IME it's almost impossible to not show a unique fingerprint ID. > > I've tried making changes, such as finding the "most unique" identifiers > and getting my FF to use "less unique" alternatives, such as a popular > Chrome version user-agent, making my language preference and location > USA rather than UK Ah, my mistake. Mea culpa. Duh. I missed the point completely. Sorry. I apologize for not understanding that s|b was suggesting that these anti-privacy extensions could making us even more fingerprint unique. It's a valid concern, especially considering the adversaries we're up against are crafty, data-hungry giants like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Cloudflare, Tiktok/Bytedance, Palantir, Oracle, etc. It's a concern if adding these 18 well-intentioned extension inadvertently make us stand out more, much like a camouflage pattern that's too custom. 1. User-Agent Switcher and Manager : version 0_6_4 2. uBlock Origin : version 1_65_0 3. NoScript : version 13_0_8 4. Cookie AutoDelete : version 3_8_2 5. Font Fingerprint Defender : version 0_1_6 6. WebRTC Control : version 0_3_3 7. Location Guard (V3) : version 3_0_0 8. Referer Control : version 1_35 9. Skip Redirect : version 2_3_6 10. StayInTab : version 1_0 11. ClearURLs : version 1_26_0 12. Decentraleyes : version 3_0_0 13. LocalCDN : version 2_6_79 14. Trace - Online Tracking Protection : version 3_0_6 15. Canvas Blocker - Fingerprint Protect : version 0_2_2 16. Browsec VPN - Free VPN for Chrome : version 3_92_2 17. Privacy Badger : version 2025_5_30 18. CthulhuJs (Anti-Fingerprint) : version 8_0_6 We probably all agree the browser problem to overcome isn't just fingerprinting as it's the ecosystem of surveillance capitalism that thrives on any sliver of uniqueness, much of which starts with an account. Remember the golden rule was never to create an account on the Internet if you don't have to, and never pay for anything if you don't have to. So all they have for fingerprinting is what we give them, much of which is from the browser itself but a lot is from our computers (like time zones and dates and IP addresses and screen sizes, etc.). Herbert Kleebauer long ago wrote a script for me to change my time zone every few minutes, but I noticed some of these extensions do it for me. Likewise I've removed all my special fonts (like Frutiger & RoadGeek), but again, I noticed some of these extensions do that for me also. Similarly I've messed with my browser header, but again, some of these extensions do it for me. I always open up to delete cookies, and again, some of these extensions delete cookies dynamically, while browsing. That said, I think the goal should be strategic opacity. Blending in where it matters, and standing out only when it serves a purpose (like logging into your Google Mail using only 1 browser, used for no other purpose). Privacy isn't just about hiding. It's about choosing when and how to be seen. To that end, I think that's critical to use one browser per account that you actually have to log into something. This is a golden rule also. Part of the problem with privacy is shown with VPN where Google & Apple hate VPN, so they force you to prove who you are when you use VPN. Hence, you really can't have privacy extensions on a browser that logs into anything. This is a critical point I haven't mentioned but it needs stating: A. The browser that logs into things, can't be a privacy browser. B. So the privacy browser is what is used for everything else. I'm sorry I hadn't made this distinction before, as it's just natural to me to (a) not log into anything, but, if I must (b) use a separate browser! Luckily, there are so many web browsers that it's easy pick one and only one browser that is used to log into any given account you must log into. <https://i.postimg.cc/fT2J40RD/windows-cascade-menu.jpg> To Andy's point, I have been testing this DIY privacy-based browser only for a week or two where previously I never used extensions (since I used Epic as my daily driver), but I think, so far, every test shows me as DIFFERENT (which is the point after all). No two tests show me as the same. Hence, I'm not sure if we've achieved our goal of being DIFFERENT every time (even if we're unique!) or not. Does it matter? I don't know. Of course you want to look like everyone else - but that's difficult to do as you've already noted. And Tor, while I use it when I must, is never gonna be the general purpose browser even as it makes you look like everyone else. I'm not sure if this DIY build your own privacy browser project is worth it or not, but I'm still working on it as it has only been a couple of weeks. In summary though, I've modified the "golden rules" to the following... a. Never create an account you don't have to b. Never pay for anything you don't have to c. Use only one browser only for each account you must log into d. Use a DIFFERENT (privacy-based) browser for general browsing This thread is about DIY building that general-purpose privacy browser. Any other ideas?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion <marion@facts.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107g7ad$285m$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #14447 |
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 19:28:00 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote : > 1. User-Agent Switcher and Manager : version 0_6_4 > 2. uBlock Origin : version 1_65_0 > 3. NoScript : version 13_0_8 > 4. Cookie AutoDelete : version 3_8_2 > 5. Font Fingerprint Defender : version 0_1_6 > 6. WebRTC Control : version 0_3_3 > 7. Location Guard (V3) : version 3_0_0 > 8. Referer Control : version 1_35 > 9. Skip Redirect : version 2_3_6 > 10. StayInTab : version 1_0 > 11. ClearURLs : version 1_26_0 > 12. Decentraleyes : version 3_0_0 > 13. LocalCDN : version 2_6_79 > 14. Trace - Online Tracking Protection : version 3_0_6 > 15. Canvas Blocker - Fingerprint Protect : version 0_2_2 > 16. Browsec VPN - Free VPN for Chrome : version 3_92_2 > 17. Privacy Badger : version 2025_5_30 > 18. CthulhuJs (Anti-Fingerprint) : version 8_0_6 UPDATE. It's ironic that I needed to add an "extension manager" to this list, as I test each and every extension above in detail against privacy test sites. I tested a few free, ad free, no-registration privacy-aware extension managers, and the one I like most so far is this on Mozilla & Chromium. Extension Manager by HongYuanCao for Mozilla-based browsers: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/extensions-manager/> Extension Manager by HongYuanCao for Chromium-based browsers: <https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/extension-manager/gjldcdngmdknpinoemndlidpcabkggco> a. It's available on both Chrome & Firefox, which is rare for EMs. b. It's ad-free, registration-free, and privacy-respecting. c. It has batch actions, grouping, and a clean UI. d. The developer appears to be transparent and responsive. Meanwhile, I've been testing the VPN extensions which passed the initial tests, where my fungible test-rating system puts them in this order: 1_browsec 2_1clickvpn 3_1vpn 4_vpnly 5_xvpn 6_securefreeedgevpn 7_setupvpn Bearing in mind these all failed the most basic initial VPN tests. hotspotshieldvpn itopvpn protonvpn urbanvpn hidemevpn hiddenbatvpn tunnelbearvpn windscribevpn In summary, we're pretty close to making a DIY browser, in both Mozilla-land and Chromium land, that is distinct from the mothership browser in terms of inherent privacy as tested against privacy test sites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox
csiph-web