On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:55:46PM +0100, Jaromil wrote: > > It is in part replicating what Torbrowser does, but for those who > > insist on not using Torbrowser, tinfoil may be a step in the right > > direction. > > Tinfoil does not replicate the torbrowser use-case, at all. > > Torbrowser does an excellent job in tunneling all traffic tor, beyond > the capacity of normal browsers.
That's not all. Torbrowser uses the SOCKS protocol to separate each browser tab into its own identity. Basically it gets you what tinfoil is doing, automatically, without needing to change your habits. This is roughly as important as using Tor in the first place. Using Tor with any other browser isn't giving the same level of privacy. > I do plan to support wrapping torbrowser too in tinfoil. Which makes sense whenever you are using Torbrowser without "Torbutton", the add-on that does the tab splitting, or when you choose to enable the convenient local storage features like bookmarks, url completion, form pre-filling. Even when using Torbrowser without Tor and in a configuration similar to a regular Firefox, it will still provide better privacy because it has various Javascript loopholes disabled. > while I generally agree, I'm not really keen to entertain "epic > thinking" on most online avenues and I'm generally adverse in > declamating universal statements. Neither did I, when I was younger. But I'm starting to grasp the big picture and see the little time that is left to get anything back in shape. Going about everyday business is not an option. Your children will ask, what were you doing when you were still in time to do something about it? And you can ask yourself, what would Aaron Swartz have done about it? Why can't I? I don't see why we should let things happen to us. That method has worked for tenthousand years, but not any further. In the meantime I've been listening to some Privacy Paradox. It is very unusual having to deal with advertizement in a podcast- it's a first timer for me. All the podcasts I usually hear are libre. Also all the clips I rip from youtube etc are ad-free, which is probably because I bypass the intended way to consume them. Who knows how long this privilege will be granted to folks like me? Episode 1 features Bruce Schneier saying so many things that I would be saying, too. Regarding "crappy" use of the web rather than "creepy": that's what I've been doing ever since Snowden. I just don't let myself be bullied into tracking. Evil enough that my friends are disrespecting my privacy each time they write an e-mail talking about me. But I'm also not doing the best I can, by writing to xkeyscore'd mailing lists. What if I was to remix the mp3s of Privacy Paradox and add my own commentary to it? Like some things are *still* naive... Would it be covered by fair use? Why aren't these files released by CC, if WNYC is so uncommercial? > ~.,_ Denis Roio aka Jaromil http://Dyne.org think &do tank > "+. CTO and co-founder free/open source developers > @) ⚷ crypto κρυπτο крипто गुप्त् 加密 האנוסים المشفره Heehee, very beautiful! > @@) GnuPG: 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10 > (@@@) opmsg:73a8e097a038d82b 8afb4c05804bda0d 281b3880fbc19b88 So somebody is indeed using opmsg... -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/ -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
