> Just a heads up that the way you've started quoting text does work in the
mailing list making this very difficult to read.
Thank you for mentioning that. I was just trying to make my post more
readable as ">" doesn't give good enough visual separation.
I was also wondering how to get email notifications for replies in the forum
as it is getting more and more difficult to find which posts are new. It
seems you are using some mail system. Could you please help me set this up?
Also please suggest a way to make posts more readable without affecting mail.
(Or maybe someone can work on the frontend to improve the forum?)
> This is probably worth starting a new thread over.
I have been thinking about it. But considering this forum is Trisquel -
wouldn't it be considered as site-off-topic? I am interested in discussing
wider aspects of freedom too (such as ones already mentioned here). Please
suggest.
> I would also be open a similarly modified version of Chromium but am not
aware of one.
Brave browser was mentioned. Perhaps worth trying. I also wonder which others
we should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers
Personally I would prefer to a browser compatible with the extensions uBlock
Origin and uMatrix as they improve the security, privacy and cleanness of
browsing tremendously.
> Am I missing something? You filed a bug report because it does, right?
Perhaps you haven't read the follow up comments in the bug report which show
that it doesn't. At least unless you open settings:// (which is I found
yesterday, also shared in comment to the bug report).
> but it's certainly not worth switching to Chromium over.
It obviously comes down to: what is more important - to have actual privacy
or to have implication of privacy respect (F0-4). From your explanation I
understand that you seem to give up privacy because of a promise for
respecting privacy (conceptually but not actually). That is what confuses me.
If we are able to inspect packet destinations (as we are) and a test shows
that a particular browser does not send packets to 3rd party, i.e. does not
really abuse the user in any way: Does it really matter if it is free or open
source at all? Please share your thoughts.
> I suggest that you approach the Tor developers
I will as soon as I test Tor too. Could you just share a link to the proper
page where I can do that?
> but the modem only needs to connect the cell network for you to be tracked.
Yes, because the SIM card is not anonymous. But with current technology and
legislation we cannot escape from that unless we stop communicating which can
be more harmful.
> As an experiment I tried making a Facebook account through Tor with a
disposable email address. It rejected the first domain I tried but accepted
the second one.
But even if that works it is not useful because to use FB you need a
non-disposable email address where you can receive notifications etc.
Otherwise the account is completely compromised and makes no sense at all
(since you can browser parts of FB without registration).
> I avoid any site that prevents me from accessing it anonymously.
I understand completely your points. Unfortunately, as mentioned previously,
the majority of people are using those sites and will not stop using them,
and will let their email provider access to your email address (even if you
are not on FB), and will not move away from FB regardless of the valid
arguments we may provide to them. Pretty much the same applies to Gmail,
Yahoo etc. So it seems to me anonymizing oneself is not the solution to
privacy but rather a road to break communication. To my mind the solution may
be a new technology, designed not to create such issues.
> The one's linked to from the FSF use libre JavaScript...
I know that. I also do a little JS programming myself but that is not
important. LibreJS is just as good as 'free software' which may send packets
to Amazon. I don't see myself auditing every JavaScript code on every
non-chached HTTP request just because it is open for evaluation. So this
basically still comes down to enforcing trust. The more I look, the more I
think we need a technology which does not in any way require from a layman
user to trust anybody. Maybe we should open a new thread.
> Sure, really the only way to be certain is to use your own server.
Is that really certainty? Is there hardware which is 100% libre and *verified
for privacy issues*. Considering that even browsers are not fully tested
(something used by millions of people) I question that, even with the risk of
my scepticism being considered close to insanity :)
> Here's some recent discussion of email providers on this forum, if you're
interested.
Thanks, I am. But as with all others - these still have the same issues at
hardware level.
> If you are freedom- and privacy- focused you can greatly mitigate risk and
harm to yourself. The fact that we can't at this time perfectly solve every
problem does not make those actions petty.
They are petty because you or I, or another 10k FLOSS enthusiasts is a drop
in the ocean. You can completely disconnect from the internet, stop using a
mobile phone, never visit a bank, give up all property so you never pay taxes
(which supports warfare), escape and go to live in a cave far from
civilization. Each of these are steps in the so called mitigation but what
kind of life is that? I (the average person) don't want to hide, I don't want
to be afraid, I don't want to inspect every bit or transistor. I want to
enjoy life and have friendships without being extra careful about each word I
say or key I press. You get the idea.
> as if you are trying to dismiss the importance of anonymity by arguing that
privacy is antisocial.
Privacy is not antisocial but forcefully breaking privacy is. Anonymity means
"without a name", i.e. without identification. I don't think one needs to
become face-less for the purpose of not being spied on. The fact that
anonymizing tools were created is just a reaction to breaking of privacy. It
won't resolve the root cause. It is really a game of cat and mouse. This is
becoming philosophical, let's maybe have a new thread.
> What I'd like is a browser that...
I would like much more than that :)
> Without us you wouldn't know what to buy
That's the curse of capitalism: property which is owned, sold and purchased,
all the time. People have tried to escape from it through opposing ideology
but that failed too. We need to fix ourselves first. Fixing technology is
very superficial at the moment.
> "so that Facebook can manipulate my dopamine levels and more efficiently
insert itself into my personal relationships. I know, I know, but it's just
so convenient!"
Exactly!
>
https://nonfree.news/2017/10/27/full-stack-developer-discovers-language-that-isnt-javascript
:))
