From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Is there a de-mozilla'd Firefox (similar to degoogled chromium)?

The reason I ask is when the chromium-based free Epic Privacy Browser died,
I wrote a tutorial for building your own chromium-based privacy browser out
of common components and I was next naturally wondering if I could extend
that tutorial to building your own privacy-based mozilla browser next...
a. no telemetry, no phoning home, no data collection, etc.
d. no internal connections whatsoever to the mothership
e. no safe-browsing checking back to the mothership
f. no account sync, click-to-call, geolocation, etc.
g. binary pruning, etc.

<reference links in the sig>
--
The links if you're interested that I'm trying to reproduce for Firefox, if possible, would be the following (but these are only for chromium browsers) <https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C105ptvs%242ihi%241%40nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com%3E>
<https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C105vlel%241r72%241%40nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com%3E>
<https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1061op9%242kch%241%40nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com%3E>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marion wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 05:52:10 -0000 (UTC) :

The links if you're interested that I'm trying to reproduce for Firefox, if possible, would be the following (but these are only for chromium browsers) <https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C105ptvs%242ihi%241%40nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com%3E>
<https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C105vlel%241r72%241%40nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com%3E>
<https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1061op9%242kch%241%40nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com%3E>

Probably the closest de-mozillafied browser similar to that of uc is libre
wolf since mozilla telemetry & data collection has already been removed.

It's on all platforms at https://librewolf.net/installation/

It also removes account sync, pocket, experiments, sponsored content, and
it comes with ublock origin pre installed & configured so you skip a step.

It resists fingerprinting even though it uses a gecko engine (versus blink
for uc) but a big difference is libre wolf doesn't strip access to the
firefox web store in the same way uc strips access to the chrome web store.

You only need to add the hide.me vpn extension to extend your tutorial.

Another contender if fingerprinting is critical is mullvad which also comes with ublock origin but it won't take vpn extensions like the hide.me vpn because it's designed to work with system-wide vpn but not vpn extensions.

Waterfox also removes telemetry so that might work and pale moon may work
since it uses its own goanna engine (which is an older fork of gecko).

Good idea and good luck!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

Is there a de-mozilla'd Firefox (similar to degoogled chromium)?

The reason I ask is when the chromium-based free Epic Privacy Browser died,
I wrote a tutorial for building your own chromium-based privacy browser out of common components and I was next naturally wondering if I could extend that tutorial to building your own privacy-based mozilla browser next...

Sounds similar to the Arkenfox project here: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 7/26/2025 7:52 AM, Marion wrote:

Is there a de-mozilla'd Firefox (similar to degoogled chromium)?

The reason I ask is when the chromium-based free Epic Privacy Browser died,
I wrote a tutorial for building your own chromium-based privacy browser out of common components and I was next naturally wondering if I could extend that tutorial to building your own privacy-based mozilla browser next...
a. no telemetry, no phoning home, no data collection, etc.
d. no internal connections whatsoever to the mothership
e. no safe-browsing checking back to the mothership
f. no account sync, click-to-call, geolocation, etc.
g. binary pruning, etc.

<reference links in the sig>

I think there's even multiple ones. Android has Fennec as a debranded
Firefox for example.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:49:35 +0200, Kyonshi wrote:

I think there's even multiple ones. Android has Fennec as a debranded Firefox for example.

But not in Play Store?
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 7/26/2025 4:20 PM, s|b wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:49:35 +0200, Kyonshi wrote:

I think there's even multiple ones. Android has Fennec as a debranded
Firefox for example.

But not in Play Store?

It's on F-Droid. I keep forgetting that not everyone uses that because
for the last few years I always check that one first.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 17:07:22 +0200, Kyonshi wrote:

On 7/26/2025 4:20 PM, s|b wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:49:35 +0200, Kyonshi wrote:

I think there's even multiple ones. Android has Fennec as a debranded
Firefox for example.

But not in Play Store?

It's on F-Droid. I keep forgetting that not everyone uses that because
for the last few years I always check that one first.

It's my understanding the F-Droid app hasn't been updated lately so most
people say to use the F-Droid Basic app instead although F-Droid web urls
work on all platforms. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.fdroid.basic

You can get Fennec in F-Droid using a browser on any platform too. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid

The privacy oriented divorced browsers Fennec & Mull are compared here. https://blog.dbmiller.org/2021-08-19-using-fennec-or-mull-for-extensible-and-secure-browsing-on-android
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 26 Jul 2025 17:56:55 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote :

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

Is there a de-mozilla'd Firefox (similar to degoogled chromium)?

The reason I ask is when the chromium-based free Epic Privacy Browser died, >> I wrote a tutorial for building your own chromium-based privacy browser out >> of common components and I was next naturally wondering if I could extend
that tutorial to building your own privacy-based mozilla browser next...

Sounds similar to the Arkenfox project here: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js

Interesting. I hadn't known anything about Arkenfox until this moment but
when I looked for the "browser" I realized it's a configuration template.

Indeed it's a "DIY Privacy Mozilla Project" like I'm trying to perform with extensions, although it too recommends adding these two extensions.
a. uBlock Origin (aimed at a wide spectrum of blocking)
b. Skip Redirect (aimed specifically to combat bounce tracking)

I might end up with Arkenfox because MullVad won't work with the "Hide.Me
VPN" extension. You'd think it would be perfect. But they clash mightily.

Luckily someone also suggested LibreWolf which comes with "uBlock Origin"
but it too won't play nicely with "Hide.Me VPN" for an unknown reason.

I've only used LibreWolf for a few hours but sometimes it won't even
connect to https://duckduckgo.com (falling back to http instead of https or even worse, it stalls, saying the site can't be found on the Internet).

Other times LibreWolf works fine with the "Hide.Me VPN" extension; so I'm
still in the agonizing throes of debugging - but I'll solve it I hope.

Thanks for the ideas to create a DIY replacement for Epic Privacy Browser (which was, up until recently, the best home solution overall bar none).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:29:39 +0200, Xavier M wrote :

It's on all platforms at https://librewolf.net/installation/
You only need to add the hide.me vpn extension to extend your tutorial.

Thanks for suggesting LibreWolf as the Ungoogled Chromium of Mozilla.

The goal is to replace the venerable Epic Privacy Browser now that it's no longer working like it used to - which is too bad as it was fantastic.

My plan is to start with the most private Mozilla/Chromium browser possible. And then add the minimum necessary extensions to make it a proxy browser.

For that first step, LibreWolf is even better than Ungoogled Chromium in
that LibreWolf will accept xpi extensions from the Mozilla Store.

Ungoogle Chromium is completely disassociated from Google so it won't
accept anything from the Chrome Web Store (so it's harder to extend).

At first LibreWolf failed to connect to https sites like duckduckgo
whenever I had all four extensions enabled but I think I fixed it.

1. uBlock Origin
<https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/download/1.65.1b2/uBlock0_1.65.1b2.firefox.signed.xpi>
2. Skip Redirect
<https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/3920533/skip_redirect-2.3.6.xpi>
3. Canvas Blocker
<https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/4413485/canvasblocker-1.11.xpi>
4. Hide.Me Free VPN Proxy
<https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/4225118/hide_me_vpn_free_proxy-1.2.5.xpi>

But I think I worked around that LibreWolf flaw by flipping this
about:config setting of "security.OCSP.require = true" to "false".

I think this solved the LibreWolf OCSP hard-fail, which checks certificate validity online. When a VPN extension like hide.me reroutes your traffic, LibreWolf may block connections if it can't verify certificates properly, resulting in no internet access at all.

Flipping this switch didn't work for MullVad though, so there's likely
more going on with MullVad and VPN/Proxy extensions than in LibreWolf.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 17:27:50 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Other times LibreWolf works fine with the "Hide.Me VPN" extension; so I'm still in the agonizing throes of debugging - but I'll solve it I hope.

Just to update in the quest to build my own proxy browser, there are severe issues (so far) getting vpn-based extensions to work in LibreWolf.

I was hoping to circumvent the LibreWolf hatred toward VPNs by using a
proxy extension in LibreWolf such as the FoxyRoxy extension.
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxyproxy-standard/> 0#a<https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/4472757/foxyproxy_standard-9.2.xpi>

That FoxyRoxy extension is supposed to be more useful than the LibreWolf
Settings > General > Network Settings > Manual Proxy Configuration

The problem isn't so much the configuration, but finding a usable proxy.
a. IP address or hostname of the proxy
b. Port number of the proxy
c. Protocol type: HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS4, SOCKS5 of the proxy
d. Authentication credentials (if required) of the proxy

You have to test each proxy to be sure they're working at any given time. Luckily curl has been shipped with Microsoft Windows 10 for years now.

curl -x http://proxy.example.com:8080 http://ipinfo.io/ip
curl --proxy https://proxy.example.com:443 https://ipinfo.io/ip --proxy-insecure

Where some have a horrid response time so they're essentially useless.

curl -o /dev/null -s -w "Total time: %{time_total} seconds\n" http://example.com --proxy http://proxy.example.com:8080

But ncat will also test a prospective proxy to see if it's working.
<https://eternallybored.org/misc/netcat/>
<https://joncraton.org/blog/46/netcat-for-windows/>
<https://www.cyberly.org/en/download-netcat/index.html>

nc.exe --proxy proxy.example.com:3128 --proxy-type http example.com 80 nc.exe --proxy proxy.example.com:1080 --proxy-type socks5 example.com 80

The problem, of course, is if the proxy is in a public list, it's
already overloaded and therefore no longer accepting connections.
<https://github.com/proxifly/free-proxy-list>
<https://momoproxy.com/free-proxy-list>
<https://proxylib.com/free-proxy-list/us/>
<https://openproxylist.com/proxy/>
<https://free-proxy-list.net/en/>
<https://www.go2proxy.com/free>
<https://vpncentral.com/free-web-proxy/>
<https://geekflare.com/proxy/best-free-proxies/>
<https://proxyscrape.com/online-proxy-checker>
<https://checkerproxy.net/>
etc.

In summary, so far, everything is easy to add to LibreWolf to create
your own DIY private browser with vpn/proxy except the VPN/Proxy :(

If you know of a reliable stable working proxy, let us all know!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 07:05:50 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

In summary, so far, everything is easy to add to LibreWolf to create
your own DIY private browser with vpn/proxy except the VPN/Proxy :(

If you know of a reliable stable working proxy, let us all know!

After hours of batch scripting, I give up trying to get LibreWolf to work
with a proxy using the FoxyProxy Extension. Nothing I tried works.

The instant I enable a proxy, the LibraWolf browser stops the connection.
I don't know if it's the browser, the extension or the proxy.

But here's the latest version of the batch file I was working on all night.
http_proxies.txt - all working HTTP proxies
socks_proxies.txt - any SOCKS4 survivors
foxyproxies.xml - ready to import straight into FoxyProxy (Import tab)
foxyproxies.json - ready to import straight into FoxyProxy (Options tab)
dead_proxies.txt - everything that failed
debug_log.txt - holds raw curl attempts for debugging

Step-by-Step: Importing foxyproxies.xml into FoxyProxy on LibreWolf

1. Install FoxyProxy Extension
Open LibreWolf and go to FoxyProxyos Firefox Add-ons page
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxyproxy-standard/
Click Add to Firefox (LibreWolf should allow it if extensions are enabled)

2. Open FoxyProxy Settings
Click the FoxyProxy icon in the toolbar
Choose Options

3. Import Your XML File
Inside the FoxyProxy settings page, look for the Import/Export tab
Click the Import tab
You get four choices:
Import FoxyProxy Account (this is for syncing with the cloud)
Import from URL (this expects a web-hosted config file)
Import Proxy List (this is for plain text)
Import from older versions <== use this for XML
Select your foxyproxies.xml file from disk
Confirm the import (it may warn you about overwriting existing settings)

But nothing happens.
a. I select "Import from older versions" & a yellow "Import" button shows
b. I click that "Import" button and a file browser shows up
c. I select foxyproxies.xml & tap "Open"
But nothing happens.

4. Verify Your Proxies
After import, you should see all your proxies listed.
You can enable/disable them or set patterns as needed

Here's the latest batch script if you want to try it yourself.
It works. It's just LibreWolf and/or FoxyProxy that doesn't work.

@echo off
setlocal EnableDelayedExpansion

REM === CONFIG ===
set INPUT=lite_proxies.txt
set HTTP_OK=http_proxies.txt
set DEAD=dead_proxies.txt
set XML_OUT=foxyproxies.xml
set JSON_OUT=foxyproxies.json
set /A ID=1
set /A CURRENT=0

REM === Count total proxies ===
for /F %%C in ('find /C /V "" ^< %INPUT%') do set TOTAL=%%C

REM === Clear output files ===

%HTTP_OK% echo.
%DEAD% echo.
%XML_OUT% echo ^<foxyproxy mode="patterns"^>

echo ^<proxies^> >> %XML_OUT%

%JSON_OUT% echo {"proxies": [

echo ?? Starting proxy test @ %TIME%
echo ?? Total proxies to test: %TOTAL%
echo ----------------------------

REM === Loop through proxy list ===
for /F "tokens=* delims=" %%P in (%INPUT%) do (
set RAW=%%P
set LINE=!RAW!

REM === Strip known prefixes ===
for /F "tokens=2,* delims= " %%A in ("!LINE!") do (
if "%%A"=="-x" set LINE=%%B
if "%%A"=="HTTP:" set LINE=%%B
)
for /F "tokens=1 delims= " %%Z in ("!LINE!") do set CLEANED=%%Z

REM === Extract IP and port ===
for /F "tokens=1,2 delims=:" %%I in ("!CLEANED!") do (
set IP=%%I
set PORT=%%J
)

REM === Display progress ===
set /A CURRENT+=1
echo ?? Testing [!CURRENT!/!TOTAL!] ? !IP!:!PORT!

REM === Test HTTP proxy ===
curl -s -x !IP!:!PORT! http://example.com -m 8 >nul 2>nul
if !errorlevel! == 0 (
echo !IP!:!PORT! >> %HTTP_OK%
echo ^<proxy id="!ID!" enabled="true" name="Proxy_!ID!" type="HTTP" address="!IP!" port="!PORT!" lastresort="true" /^> >> %XML_OUT%
if !ID! GTR 1 echo, >> %JSON_OUT%
echo {"id": "!ID!", "enabled": true, "name": "Proxy_!ID!", "type": "HTTP", "address": "!IP!", "port": !PORT!, "lastresort": true} >> %JSON_OUT%
set /A ID+=1
) else (
echo ? DEAD: !IP!:!PORT! >> %DEAD%
)
)

echo ^</proxies^> >> %XML_OUT%
echo ^</foxyproxy^> >> %XML_OUT%
echo ]} >> %JSON_OUT%
call echo ?? Finished at: %%TIME%%
pause
--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Has anyone on this ng ever gotten a VPN extension to work with LibreWolf?
<https://librewolf.net/docs/faq/>
<https://www.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/15fb51p/ocsp_server_issues_worse_with_vpn/>
<https://github.com/ProtonVPN/proton-vpn-browser-extension/issues/8>
<https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/browser/arch/-/issues/72>

Belatedly I found out that even the LibreWolf web pages says you can't use
a VPN extension, so, I guess I should have known you can't use VPN with it.

After days of trying, I'm giving up on turning LibreWolf into a privacy browser. It's not possible. LibreWolf can't be used with VPN extensions.

In hindsight, everything is obvious. VPN extensions don't work with it.

You get errors such as
SEC_ERROR_OCSP_SERVER_ERROR
MOZILLA_PKIX_ERROR_KEY_PINNING_FAILURE

Apparently LibreWolf has issues with OCSP (Online Certificate Status
Protocol) checks even if you disable the hard fail in about:config
security.OCSP.require = false
security.OCSP.enabled = 0 (off)

Oddly, on the net, some people say they can get LibreWolf to work.
But it's super flaky when I try it where it basically doesn't work for me.

Has anyone on this ng ever gotten a VPN extension to work with LibreWo
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 19:39:36 -0000 (UTC), Marion 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.

The immediate pressing need was to replace the Epic Privacy Browser,
because it simply stopped working on July 7th, 2025 & needed replacing.
*Not Starting / Crashing On Open: Windows & Mac Solutions
<https://blog.epicbrowser.com/2025/07/epic-not-starting-crashing-on-open-windows-mac-solutions/>

I was hoping to replace Epic with a DIY lightweight Mozilla-based privacy browser, but it's turning out to be much harder than I thought it should.

So temporarily, I'm shifting over to a DIY Chromium-based privacy browser instead. I wrote the tutorial for that project just yesterday (see below).

I'll test the DIY chromium-based privacy browser for a while, and then I'll try again to find a way to make a DIY mozilla-based privacy browser.

Here, for the team, is what I'd like to write - but for a Mozilla browser.
This way Mozilla users can do what chromium users do using the tutorial.

From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.comp.microsoft.windows
Subject: Tutorial: DIY build your own lightweight chromium-based privacy web browser
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 02:25:51 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1069bff$24ia$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

This tutorial walks you through creating a DIY Chromium-based
privacy browser using Brave and Ungoogled Chromium.

This was written for the benefit of the team, off the cuff.
Please improve so that everyone benefits from your every post.

I've been using Epic as my lightweight privacy browser for years,
but it recently went south, so I needed a new lightweight privacy
browser (other than Opera & Tor, which have their own pros & cons).

Here's how to roll your own DIY chromium-based privacy browser.
The assumption is that you want your base to be Ungoogled Chromium.

Since Ungoogled Chromium can't easily access Chrome Web Extensions,
you'll need "some other chromium-based browser" where Edge isn't a good
idea due to the fact that the extensions may be modified by Edge.

Hence, I picked Brave as the chromium-based web browser to temporarily
fetch extensions, but the final lightweight privacy browser was UC.

1. Download the latest Brave full offline installer into your archive.
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/releases/tag/v1.80.124
BraveBrowserSetup.exe ==> stub
<https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/releases/download/v1.80.124/BraveBrowserSetup.exe>
BraveBrowserStandaloneSetup.exe ==> interactive installer
<https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/releases/download/v1.80.124/BraveBrowserStandaloneSetup.exe>
<BraveBrowserStandaloneSilentSetup.exe == batch installer>

2. Doubleclick on the desired installer to install (I chose silent).
It's a brain-dead dumb installer that doesn't ask where to go.
Mine installed Brave into
C:\Program Files\BraveSoftware\Brave-Browser\Application\brave.exe
%LOCALAPPDATA%\BraveSoftware\Brave-Browser\Application\

3. Start Brave and install your desired privacy-based extensions.
I chose the following privacy-based extensions (YMMV).

hidemevpn 1.3.0_0
Unblocks websites and hides your IP using hide.me proxy.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/hideme-proxy/ohjocgmpmlfahafbipehkhbaacoemojp>

ublockorigin 1.65.0_0
Efficient wide-spectrum content blocker for ads, trackers, etc.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm>

canvasblocker 0.2.2_0
Prevents canvas fingerprinting by injecting noise into canvas data.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/canvas-blocker-fingerprin/nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd>

skipredirect 2.3.6_0
Skips intermediary redirect pages to reach final URLs directly.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/skip-redirect/jaoafjdoijdconemdmodhbfpianehlon>

privacybadger 2025.5.30_0
Learns and blocks invisible trackers that ignore Do Not Track.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/privacy-badger/pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp>

clearurls 1.26.0_0
Removes tracking parameters from URLs to protect your privacy.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/clearurls/lckanjgmijmafbedllaakclkaicjfmnk>

localcdn 2.6.79_0
Replaces CDN-hosted libraries with local copies to prevent tracking.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/localcdn/njdfdhgcmkocbgbhcioffdbicglldapd>

cookieautodelete 3.8.2_0
Auto-deletes cookies from closed tabs unless whitelisted.
<https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh>

Note: I've never needed extensions until today (since I use only privacy
browsers like Tor & Opera) so these are just my guesses at what's good.

If you have improvements, particularly in the VPN extension, please
add your improvements so that the team benefits from every post.

4. Copy the numbered folder (containing manifest.json) to your archives.
cd %LOCALAPPDATA%\BraveSoftware\Brave-Browser\User Data\Default\Extensions\

For hidemevpn 1.3.0_0 ...
Copy "ohjocgmpmlfahafbipehkhbaacoemojp" to your hidemevpn archive
Rename "ohjocgmpmlfahafbipehkhbaacoemojp" to "hidemevpn"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\hidemevpn\1.3.0_0\

ublockorigin 1.65.0_0 ...
Copy "cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm" to your ublockorigin archive
Rename "cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm" to "ublockorigin"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\ublockorigin\1.65.0_0\

canvasblocker 0.2.2_0 ...
Copy "nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd" to your canvasblocker archive
Rename "nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd" to "canvasblocker"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\canvasblocker\0.2.2_0\

skipredirect 2.3.6_0 ...
Copy "jaoafjdoijdconemdmodhbfpianehlon" to your skipredirect archive
Rename "jaoafjdoijdconemdmodhbfpianehlon" to "skipredirect"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\skipredirect\2.3.6_0\

privacybadger 2025.5.30_0 ...
Copy "pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp" to your privacybadger archive
Rename "pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp" to "privacybadger"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\privacybadger\2025.5.30_0\

clearurls 1.26.0_0 ...
Copy "lckanjgmijmafbedllaakclkaicjfmnk" to your clearurls archive
Rename "lckanjgmijmafbedllaakclkaicjfmnk" to "clearurls"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\clearurls\1.26.0_0\

localcdn 2.6.79_0 ...
Copy "njdfdhgcmkocbgbhcioffdbicglldapd" to your localcdn archive
Rename "njdfdhgcmkocbgbhcioffdbicglldapd" to "localcdn"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\localcdn\2.6.79_0\

cookieautodelete 3.8.2_0 ...
Copy "fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh" to your cookieautodelete archive
Rename "fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh" to "cookieautodelete"
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\cookieautodelete\3.8.2_0\

5. Download the latest Ungoogled Chromium offline installer
<https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows/
Click on the green "Latest" button.
<https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows/releases/tag/138.0.7204.168-1.1>
Select "ungoogled-chromium_138.0.7204.168-1.1_installer_x64.exe"
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows/releases/download/138.0.7204.168-1.1/ungoogled-chromium_138.0.7204.168-1.1_installer_x64.exe>
Or select the zip archive so you can install it where you like.
ungoogled-chromium_138.0.7204.168-1.1_windows_x86.zip
<https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows/releases/download/138.0.7204.168-1.1/ungoogled-chromium_138.0.7204.168-1.1_windows_x86.zip>

6. Doubleclick on the saved executable to install ungoogled chromium

Note we chose Ungoogled Chromium because we trust that it is
de-googled more so than any other Chromium browser we know of.

If we had wanted to use Brave instead, we'd be done in step 4.

7. Now install each of the extensions into Ungoogled Chromium.
a. In Ungoogled Chromium, go to chrome://extensions/
b. Enable Developer mode in the top right (if not already enabled).
c. Click the "Load unpacked" button in the top left.
d. Select a numbered archived extension folder containing manifest.json
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\hidemevpn\1.3.0_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\ublockorigin\1.65.0_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\canvasblocker\0.2.2_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\skipredirect\2.3.6_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\privacybadger\2025.5.30_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\clearurls\1.26.0_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\localcdn\2.6.79_0\
C:\archive\browser\chromium\extensions\cookieautodelete\3.8.2_0\
e. The extension should now be installed & running
If an extension fails to load, double-check that the
manifest.json is in the root of the selected folder.
f. To "pin" it to Ungoogled Chromium select the puzzle icon at top right
g. A dropdown will appear showing all installed extensions
h. Click the pin icon next to uBlock Origin in the list

8. Set your extensions up as desired in Ungoogled Chromium.

9. At this point you can keep Brave as is, or wipe it out for
a fresh installation, depending on what you want to do with it.

You now have a customized Chromium browser with privacy extensions,
(and archived for portability & reuse on any chromium browser).

Tested only once as I was doing the task and writing up the steps taken.
As always, please add value to improve the tribal knowledge for the team.

Note extensions installed this way into Ungoogled Chromium do not
automatically update. So you'll have to manually update as above.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:41:30 -0000 (UTC), Marion <marion@facts.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 19:39:36 -0000 (UTC), Marion 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?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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?

The goal here, clearly, is a mozilla-based diy privacy web browser, similar
to what Opera/Epic do and somewhat (but not really) like what Tor does.

If Firefox can do it, that would be perfect.
To use Firefox, we'd have to remove all the telemetry I think.
<https://www.howtogeek.com/557929/how-to-see-and-disable-the-telemetry-data-firefox-collects-about-you/>

We'd have to add enhanced tracking protection I think (but I'm not sure).
<https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop>

We'd have to wipe out the data collection inherent in Firefox I think.
<https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/technical-and-interaction-data>

What else are you suggesting we'd have to do in Firefox to make it into a
DIY de-mozilla'd web browser suitable for adding the privacy extensions?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marion 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?

The goal here, clearly, is a mozilla-based diy privacy web browser, similar to what Opera/Epic do and somewhat (but not really) like what Tor does.

So just shut up with your bla and use Tor Browser. https://www.torproject.org/download/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 04:03:32 +0200, Frank Miller wrote :

The goal here, clearly, is a mozilla-based diy privacy web browser, similar >> to what Opera/Epic do and somewhat (but not really) like what Tor does.

So just shut up with your bla and use Tor Browser. https://www.torproject.org/download/

I'm not sure why the childish hateful bullying schoolboy vehemence,
but there is nothing wrong with looking for a de-mozilla'd Firefox, but to respond kindly to that suggestion, onion routing is very different from
what a VPN (aka proxy) extension does.

Onion routing & vpn/proxy are only similar to those who don't understand
the difference - as general purpose browsers will never be onion routers.

Moving forward, I did try the suggestion of using Mullvad, which is quite a nice Mozilla-based general-purpose privacy web browser out of the box.
a. Mullvad has fingerprint resistance by default
b. It has private mode by default (i.e., no history, cookies, etc.)
c. Mozilla telemetry has been stripped out
d. It forces HTTPS mode by default
e. It has enhanced tracking protection by default
f. It has cookie isolation protection
g. It encrypts DNS requests over HTTPS
h. It alerts users to fingerprinting sites
i. It even supports some privacy extensions (e.g., uBlock Origin)
e. And it's designed for VPN use - however - there's a catch...

It works with VPN all right - but it only seems to work with its own VPN.
<https://mullvad.net/en/browser>

The problem is the Mullvad Browser Extension only functions if youore
actively connected to Mullvad VPN and to connect to Mullvad VPN you need to register for an account - which is the worst thing anyone can do.

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.

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 07:03:02 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

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.

HELPFUL UPDATE:

I've been testing privacy extensions, one by one, and so far, they appear
to be working well - but a lot more testing needs to be done to be sure.

Nonetheless, just to update the group at large, here're some I'm testing.

for /d %i in (*) do @for /d %j in ("%i\*") do @echo %j

ublockorigin\1.65.0_0
canvasblocker\0.2.2_0
skipredirect\2.3.6_0
privacybadger\2025.5.30_0
clearurls\1.26.0_0
localcdn\2.6.79_0
cookieautodelete\3.8.2_0
trace\3.0.6_0
noscript\13.0.8_0
decentraleyes\3.0.0_0
useragentswitcher\0.6.4_0
httpseverywhere\1.0_0
fontfingerprintdefender\0.1.6_0
disablehtml5autoplay\0.9.3_0
referercontrol\1.35_0

As always, this is posted to help everyone who wants the information, so if you are aware of others, please add value by suggesting they also be tested.

+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Extension Name | Privacy Function |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| uBlock Origin | Blocks ads, trackers, malware; no data collection
| CanvasBlocker | Spoofs/block canvas & JS APIs to prevent fingerprinting
| Skip Redirect | Bypasses tracking redirects to reach final URL faster
| Privacy Badger | Learns & blocks trackers; sends Do Not Track signals
| ClearURLs | Removes tracking elements from URLs automatically
| LocalCDN | Serves CDN resources locally to prevent tracking
| Cookie AutoDelete | Deletes cookies from closed tabs; whitelist support
| Trace | Blocks fingerprinting & trackers; customizable shields
| NoScript | Blocks scripts; allows only trusted sites; anti-XSS
| Decentraleyes | Emulates CDN libraries locally to block CDN tracking
| User-Agent Switcher | Spoofs browser identity to prevent fingerprinting
| HTTPS Everywhere | Forces HTTPS connections for secure browsing
| FontFingerprintDefender| Adds noise to font fingerprint; renews on reload
| Disable HTML5 Autoplay | Stops auto-playing media; hooks JS API for control
| Referer Control | Modifies or disables HTTP referer headers
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+










--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Mike Easter wrote:

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).

While I choose not to actually /do/ it, I have done some 'thought experiments' in resolving what is 'troubling' privacy above.

We can use our conversation here as an example of something.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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 extensionos 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?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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/>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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/>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 20:14:06 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote:

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.

FYI <https://amiunique.org/> is up again.
--
s|b
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:40:05 +0200, s|b wrote :

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.

FYI <https://amiunique.org/> is up again.

Thanks you for your persistence as that's the only way to make progress!

I've been testing the DIY privacy browser for, oh, maybe a couple weeks
now, where what I do is turn off all the extensions save for one, and then
I run it through a whole suite of privacy checks with & without extensions.

It takes a lot of time & effort so I needed a way to make it quicker,
where one way to remove & add extensions is to use the unpacked folders.

Since I'm constantly turning extensions on and off repeatedly, I needed an extension manager, of which there are many, but we want consistency with
the Chromium-based & Mozilla-based privacy browsers, so I opted for
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>

Other extension managers are more powerful, but being both simple and consistent between browsers is a huge value in and of itself for EMs.

Back to your point about all these privacy extensions potentially making us unique, it's OK to be unique - as long as EVERY visit is unique in itself.

Hence, we need to make multiple runs at the https://amiunique.org/ site.
Also, it appears that we may need to wipe out cookies, but luckily the
browser extensions I've added do wipe out the cookies between tabs.

This is needed because the https://amiunique.org/ site says this
just below the purple-hued "See my fingerprint" button.
"we will collect your browser fingerprint
and we will put a cookie on your browser
for a period of 4 months."

When I first pressed the "See my fingerprint" button, I was unique at
"All Time"
"Are you unique ?"
"Yes!"
"You are unique among the 4208682 fingerprints in our entire dataset."

Wiping out cookies and switching the VPN IP, doing it again, it says
"All Time"
"Are you unique ?"
"Yes!"
"You are unique among the 4208709 fingerprints in our entire dataset."

Trying it again an hour later with a different VPN, I'm again unique.
"All Time"
"Are you unique ?"
"Yes!"
"You are unique among the 4208916 fingerprints in our entire dataset."

Hmmm... Andy said he's always unique & he's not running a privacy browser.
What do you think these results are actually telling us about the browser?

Could it be it's unique more than once without changing anything but IP?
Is there a way to get a single number for entropy so I can compare them?

I think I remember https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ used to give entropy, (e.g., at 0 bits everyone looks the same, but 20 bits is 1 in a million).

I couldn't get a single entropy number. Just an entropy for each category.
But it does say, near the top for "Protecting you from fingerprinting?"
"Your browser has a randomized fingerprint"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 20:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Meanwhile, I've been testing the VPN extensions which passed the initial tests, where my fungible test-rating system puts them in this order:
browsec
1clickvpn
1vpn
vpnly
xvpn
securefreeedgevpn
setupvpn

Bearing in mind these all failed the most basic initial VPN tests.
hotspotshieldvpn
itopvpn
protonvpn
urbanvpn
hidemevpn
hiddenbatvpn
tunnelbearvpn
windscribevpn

UPDATE:

I ditched the VPN extensions in order to test a SOCKS5 proxy tunnel.
browsec ==> the best, but it slows down drastically in a week
1clickvpn ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days
1vpn ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days
vpnly ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days
xvpn ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days
securefreeedgevpn ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days
setupvpn ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days
hoxx ==> seems to slow down drastically in just days

hotspotshieldvpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
itopvpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
protonvpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
urbanvpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
hidemevpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
hiddenbatvpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
tunnelbearvpn ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions
windscribevpnv ==> fails the initial VPN extension test conditions

Bad news. Very bad news. All the VPN extensions slow down tremendously, it seems, within a few days of using them. So I tried something else that is
free, login free and hopefully, much faster than VPN extensions are.
a. Psiphon (Socks5 proxy)
b. Freecap (Socks5 redirector)
c. Any browser (with a score of privacy extensions)

A. Psiphon is not a traditional VPN but rather a circumvention tool that
uses a mix of VPN, SSH, and HTTP proxy technologies to bypass censorship.

B. Freecap (or Proxifier) is used to route app traffic (such as that of a browser) through a SOCKS5 proxy to achieve selective traffic tunneling.

C. Any Browser + Privacy Extensions for fingerprinting and tracking
protection.

I also uninstalled NoScript as it was a royal pita to manage.
I also removed the non-privacy extension disablehtml5autoplay.

Here's what I'm currently testing (where IP obfuscation & speed are key).
Psiphon + Freecap + Any privacy browser + privacy extensions

https://psiphon.ca/
Name: psiphon3.exe
Size: 10402576 bytes (10158 KiB)
SHA256: DB1BAF76F0333F4743919A86F35037559F9E7DA7DF14982DFC16FB8DC0BE6BE2

https://freecap.apponic.com/download/
Name: freecap_setup_eng.exe
Size: 1644848 bytes (1606 KiB)
SHA256: C3D4929AB5A5867A6BE9914FF94DEFEFED6762748EDB1E351C86EBC5A02D46EC

Here are the current set of privacy extensions (many for fingerprinting):
bhchdcejhohfmigjafbampogmaanbfkg : User-Agent Switcher and Manager
cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm : uBlock Origin
fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh : Cookie AutoDelete
fhkphphbadjkepgfljndicmgdlndmoke : Font Fingerprint Defender
fjkmabmdepjfammlpliljpnbhleegehm : WebRTC Control
gjldcdngmdknpinoemndlidpcabkggco : Extension Manager
hhnhplojcganfmfimkeboiipphklcbih : Location Guard (V3)
hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin : Referer Control
jaoafjdoijdconemdmodhbfpianehlon : Skip Redirect
jjbikklopibeimjelkohlldbjcdnofei : StayInTab
lckanjgmijmafbedllaakclkaicjfmnk : ClearURLs
ldpochfccmkkmhdbclfhpagapcfdljkj : Decentraleyes
njdfdhgcmkocbgbhcioffdbicglldapd : LocalCDN
njkmjblmcfiobddjgebnoeldkjcplfjb : Trace - Online Tracking Protection
nomnklagbgmgghhjidfhnoelnjfndfpd : Canvas Blocker - Fingerprint Protect
pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp : Privacy Badger
pmcpffnpjncfplinfnjebjoonbncnjfl : CthulhuJs (Anti-Fingerprint)

And this is what I'm currently testing in the DIY browser where SPEED
(and IP obfuscation) turn out to be the hardest things to get this way.

How to add Socks5 to your Windows 10 browser sessions:
1. Start Psiphon & make a note of the SocksV5 port in the log output
2. Start Freecap & add the Socks5 port for your browser into the settings
3. Add your web browser into the Freecap settings
4. In Freecap, add desired command-line performance flags for the
application:
--disable-background-timer-throttling
--disable-backgrounding-occluded-windows
--disable-renderer-backgrounding

Voila!

This setup routes only selected web browser traffic via FreeCap through Psiphon, offering selective IP obfuscation & hopefully maintaining speed.

If this works, we can ditch the problematic VPN extensions, all of which
seem to either fail the initial tests or severely slow down in just days.

I just started testing it, but I post this so that others who actually
know what they're doing can add value to how they do Socks5 tunneling!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marion wrote:

I ditched the VPN extensions in order to test a SOCKS5 proxy tunnel.

If all the proxies slow down after a few days, are they trying to be
caching proxies? Can they just operate as "direct" proxies without caching?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

How to add Socks5 to your Windows 10 browser sessions:
1. Start Psiphon & make a note of the SocksV5 port in the log output
2. Start Freecap & add the Socks5 port for Brave into the settings
3. Add Brave (or any browser) into the Freecap settings
4. In Freecap, add any command-line performance flags for the application

OMG. Everything I touch in Windows has needlessly unnecessary complexity.

I should note that you'd think we could just set the proxy inside the
browser, and, well, um, er, we can, in some browsers. Like in Firefox.

However, Brave doesn't have native proxy settings inside of it.
Neither does Ungoogled Chromium. Bummer.

For the three browsers, things have to be done different ways:
a. Firefox has its own manual proxy settings native to the browser
b. Ungoogled Chromium can use Windows command-line proxy settings
c. But Brave has to use Windows proxy settings (or FreeCap to proxify it)

Psiphon dynamically assigns proxy ports for each session, for example...
SOCKS5: 127.0.0.1:1080 (the port changes each instance)
HTTP/HTTPS: 127.0.0.1:8080 (the port changes each instance)

Once you have those ports, here's the manual Firefox setup:
Firefox:Settings > General > Network Settings > [Settings]
Configure Proxy Access to the Internet > Manual proxy configuration
SOCKS Host = 127.0.0.1
Port = 1080
(o) SOCKS v5
[x] Proxy DNS when using SOCKS v5
Note: Firefox can also make use of the FoxyProxy Extension.
Firefox handles DNS via SOCKS5 if the box is checked,
but other apps may leak DNS unless proxified.

Ungoogled Chromium can be launched directly using those proxy flags.

ungoogled-chromium --proxy-server="socks5://127.0.0.1:1080" ungoogled-chromium --proxy-server="http=127.0.0.1:8080"

Brave is easiest to set up with a proxifier such as FreeCap.
Freecap3.18:File > Settings > Default proxy > Proxy settings
Default proxy > Server = 127.0.0.1 Port: = 1080
Protocol (o) Socks v5
This sets Psiphon'[s SOCKS5 proxy for apps launched through FreeCap.

Or we can set up Windows globally to use Psiphon's SOCKS5 proxy.
But Windows 10 does not natively support SOCKS5 in its GUI proxy settings. Windows 10 only supports HTTP/HTTPS proxies directly. Aurgh.

Here's one way to set up SOCKS5 proxy globally in Windows 10.
Win+R > control
Internet Options
Click the "Connections" tab on that "Internet Properties" dialog
Click the "LAN Settings" button near the bottom of that display
This brings up the "Local Area Network (LAN) Settings" form
[x] Use a proxy server for your LAN
Click the [Advanced] button in that LAN Settings form
Uncheck [_]Use the same proxy for all protocols
Socks = 127.0.0.1 Port = 1080
[OK][OK][OK]

In summary, once you have the SOCKS5 proxy ports defined, you can set up
your web browser to use it, but each browser does it differently.

Sigh.

And if you think that's confusing, guess what else is confusing?

The Windows 10 LAN Settings method let you enter SOCKS5, but Windows
doesn't actually honor SOCKS5 in that dialog.

Windows 10 only applies HTTP/HTTPS proxies.

So while you can enter the SOCKS5 values into that Windows 10 dialog,
Windows 10 won't use the values for most apps unless those apps explicitly support SOCKS5 via system proxy (which is rare - but which is what Brave
does).

Oh, and if you think Windows 11 is "better", guess again!
You cannot select SOCKS5 in the Windows 11 built-in proxy GUI.

Even if you enter a SOCKS5 address in the Windows 11 Manual proxy setup, Windows 11 will treat it as an HTTP proxy and fail to route traffic
properly. OMG.

Did I mention everything I touch in Windows is unnecessarily complex?

Here's the summary (and yes, I'm still confused, but I think it's right).
Windows 10 GUI limitations:
You can enter SOCKS5, but Windows doesn't honor it
Only HTTP/HTTPS proxies are applied system-wide
Windows 11:
No SOCKS5 support
SOCKS5 entries are treated as HTTP proxies and fail

That's why you essentially need a proxifier, such as FreeCap is.
(Or Proxifier, WideCap, SocksEscort, ProxyCap, etc.)

So now we're back to Brave, which natively supports a system proxy, but
Windows doesn't support SOCKS5 system-wide, so Brave actually can't use
SOCKS5 unless proxified (which is where FreeCap came into play).

Sigh. Why is privacy so hard to achieve. :)

I'm just beginning to learn this stuff, so if anyone out there is familiar
with using SOCKS5 for IP-address obfuscation, please add your value.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 07:04:02 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :

I ditched the VPN extensions in order to test a SOCKS5 proxy tunnel.

If all the proxies slow down after a few days, are they trying to be
caching proxies? Can they just operate as "direct" proxies without caching?

I'm not afraid to say that I have no idea.

I note you said "if all the proxies slow down", where I think you had meant
"if all the VPN extensions slow down", so I will assume you're asking...
Q: Are the VPN extensions acting like caching proxies?
A: ?

Q: Could the VPN extensions work as direct proxies instead?
A: ?

While a caching proxy stores copies of frequently accessed web content
(like images, scripts, or pages) to serve them faster next time, they're typically HTTP proxies and not VPN/SOCKS5 proxies (as far as I'm aware).

Given these are the free VPN extensions which haven't outright failed:
Browsec, 1ClickVPN, 1VPN, VPNly, XVPN, SetupVPN, Hoxx, securefreeedgevpn
I need to test them on a clean install with speedtest.net over time.

I haven't done that (mainly 'cuz I didn't expect slowdowns to occur).
I've never used VPN extensions until early July when Epic went bust.

So maybe others who have more experience with VPN extensions can help.
I'm assuming that the VPN extension slowdowns are part of their plan.
a. They give you faster VPN tunneling at first
b. And then, when you're hooked, they slow you down
c. Unless you buy their premium tier (which they all will offer you)

But I don't really know anything about these VPN extensions.
Like how do they know I'm a repeat customer?

I guess they can key off my IP address (which is static).
Or maybe they key off a browser fingerprint perhaps?
Or maybe each VPN extension can have a unique installation ID?

Dunno.
Maybe the VPN extensions are just overloaded.

I do not know the answer as I've only used them for a few weeks.
Do others have experience with VPN extensions who can advise us?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marion wrote:

I note you said "if all the proxies slow down", where I think you had meant "if all the VPN extensions slow down",

Well, you said you were ditching the VPN extensions, and had switched to SOCKS5, and then gave a long list of "X slows down", "Y slows down" ...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 18:13:06 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :

I note you said "if all the proxies slow down", where I think you had meant >> "if all the VPN extensions slow down",

Well, you said you were ditching the VPN extensions, and had switched to SOCKS5, and then gave a long list of "X slows down", "Y slows down" ...

Ah. Sorry. That's my fault. My bad. I'm confused. There's a lot of detail
when you are building your own DIY privacy browser from existing browsers.

I just ran a few more experiments with speedtest sites where I get my
Internet from miles away over the air (as you know), so I don't have the fastest of speeds (they don't bring cable or fiber to this part of town).
<https://www.speedtest.net/>
<https://speed.cloudflare.com/>
<https://testmy.net/>
<https://www.fast.com/>
<https://www.bandwidthplace.com/>
<https://www.speedcheck.org/>
<https://www.nperf.com/en/>
<https://speedsmart.net/>
<https://www.dslreports.com/speedtest>
<https://librespeed.org/>
<https://www.measurementlab.net/tests/ndt/>
<https://www.ispeedtest.io/>
etc.

After running s'more speed tests today, I think some my speed slowdowns are perhaps likely more due to one or more of my privacy extensions
irrespective of the VPN itself; but I'm not really sure why the slowdowns.

dir /b .\vpn_extension\working\.

browsec
1clickvpn
setupvpn
securefreeedgevpn
xvpn
vpnly
1vpn
hoxx


It's perhaps due to one or more of these privacy-based extensions perhaps:

dir /b .\privacy_extensions\.

fontfingerprintdefender
localcdn
privacybadger
referercontrol
skipredirect
trace
ublockorigin
useragentswitcher
webrtccontrol
canvasblocker
clearurls
cookieautodelete
decentraleyes
privacypossum
locationguard
stayintab
cthulhujs
allfingerprintdefender

It will be a while before I identify conclusively which, if any, of these privacy extensions are slowing the VPN extensions down, but they don't seem
to be slowing down the SOCKS5 tunnel via the open source Psiphon 3 tool.

But I'm still running experiments, so consider this a running log report.

At the moment, we have 3 options for a privacy browser with IP obfuscation.
1. System-wide VPN + the 18 browser-privacy extensions listed above
2. Browser VPN extensions (any of the 8 above that passed initial tests)
3. Local open-source SOCKS5 Proxy Tunnel (Psiphon + FreeCap)

All three methods worked for me, so far, for my privacy purposes.
All I need out of them is faster speed.
Don't we all. :)

Note: Part of the problem is I've never used VPN extensions in a browser
until now & I've never used SOCKS5 tunnels until now, so I'm still a noob.

But I'm always trying to be helpful and to add value, so that's why I'm reporting in reproducible detail what is working so far and what isn't.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 18:23:56 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

At the moment, we have 3 options for a privacy browser with IP obfuscation.
1. System-wide VPN + the 18 browser-privacy extensions listed above
2. Browser VPN extensions (any of the 8 above that passed initial tests)
3. Local open-source SOCKS5 Proxy Tunnel (Psiphon + FreeCap)

All three methods worked for me, so far, for my privacy purposes.

UPDATE

Doubling up the protection (like adding layers to an onion)!

I was checking tracert test outputs when something strange revealed itself.
I had forgotten to turn off the randomized system-wide VPN connections.

It only then occurred to me that I could layer a system-wide VPN over the SOCKS5 proxy for apps (for an added layer of obfuscating protection).

Here's the fundamental process:
A. Start any free no-registration system-wide VPN.
B. Start the FOSS Psiphon tools to connect to a SOCKS5 proxifier port.
C. Set up Firefox for that port (or use FreeCap to proxify Firefox).

Now, when you run Mozilla-based web browsers...
1. Your ISP sees only your activity on the system-wide VPN IP address
2. Your VPN server only sees your real IP address & the Psiphon IP address
3. Psiphon only sees your VPN IP address & the ultimate web site IP address
4. The ultimate website server only sees the Psiphon IP address
5. Your web fingerprint is protected by your privacy protecting extensions

All this is done using a score of registration-free ad-free privacy tools.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:43:04 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

OMG. Everything I touch in Windows has needlessly unnecessary complexity.

If it takes two button clicks, that's one too many, and if a click exposes your privacy, then we have to think about how to protect our privacy.

To both those ends, I improved the process this morning of running a
free no-registration system-wide random VPN first, and then running
Psiphon with a static SOCKS5 port of 1080 so that when I run the
privacy web browser from FreeCap, I now don't need to set the SOCKS5
port each time.

One "privacy" problem, albeit minor, with Psiphon, is that it brings
up an advertisement on your default web browser during startup.

Drat. That sucks. It's not harmful, but it exposes your privacy.
Needlessly.

So let's fix that pronto using basic Windows tricks of setting
the default web browser to a batch file that does whatever I want.

Besides, even with a random system-wide no-registration free VPN running,
it's still bad form for Psiphon to be bringing up a default browser to
an advertisement which can, for all we know, rot privacy in some way.

That browser session unilaterally launched by Psiphon isn't yet proxified.
As I said many times, privacy is like hygiene. It's a billion things.

Removing that initial privacy flaw at Psiphon startup needed to be done.

Unfortunately, the free Psiphon doesn't have switches to turn that off.

psiphon3.exe -mode=socks <== this doesn't exist... bummer

We might like to set up the Tor browser as the default because it can
open up unconnected, but it's problematic to set a Tor browser as
the default (since Tor doesn't register itself as a Windows browser).

So let's just create a dummy web browser for Psiphon to invoke.
@echo off
REM C:\path\to\dummybrowser.bat 20250819 revision 1.0
set LOGFILE=C:\path\to\dummybrowser.log
echo [%date% %time%] Attempted launch: %* >> %LOGFILE%
start "" "C:\path\to\gvim.exe" "%LOGFILE%"
exit

Since Windows won't set the default web browser to a batch
file, let's convert that dummybrowser.bat to dummybrowser.exe
using any of a number of batch-to-executable converters.

<https://github.com/l-urk/Bat-To-Exe-Converter-64-Bit/releases>
<https://github.com/l-urk/Bat-To-Exe-Converter-64-Bit/releases/download/3.2/Bat_To_Exe_Converter_x64.exe>
1. Open that "Bat To Exe Converter v3.2" executable.
2. Select your .bat file using the folder icon.
3. At the right, in Options, there is "Exe-Format" with these choices
32-bit | Console (Visible)
32-bit | Windows (Invisible)
64-bit | Console (Visible)
64-bit | Windows (Invisible) <== Use this to compile a batch file
as a 64-bit GUI-style exe that runs silently with no console window.
4. Click the "Convert" button to convert batch to exe.
5. Choose your output path in the "Save as" field.
(Optional) Add an icon or version info.

But you still can't select the dummy browser yet as it's not registered.
Win+I > Apps > Default apps > Web browser >
Choose default apps by file type
Choose default apps by protocol
Set defaults by app
Recommended browser settings

You first need to register your exe as a web browser in the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet

To do that, right-click "merge" this registry file:

gvim C:\path\to\register_dummy_browser.reg

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\DummyBrowser]
@="Dummy Browser"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\DummyBrowser\Capabilities]
"ApplicationName"="Dummy Browser"
"ApplicationDescription"="A privacy-preserving dummy browser"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\DummyBrowser\Capabilities\FileAssociations]
".htm"="DummyBrowserHTML"
".html"="DummyBrowserHTML"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\DummyBrowser\Capabilities\URLAssociations]
"http"="DummyBrowserHTML"
"https"="DummyBrowserHTML"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\DummyBrowserHTML\shell\open\command]
@="\"C:\\path\\to\\dummybrowser.exe\" \"%1\""

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\RegisteredApplications]
"Dummy Browser"="Software\\Clients\\StartMenuInternet\\DummyBrowser\\Capabilities"

Now you can select the dummy browser as your default web browser.
Win+I > Apps > Default apps > Web browser > dummybrowser.exe

Voila!

Now, when you start Psiphon, it tries to launch the advertisement
using the default browser, which happens to simply log the attempt.

As always, privacy, like hygiene, is a billion things done every day.

If you have improvements to share, please let the team know so
we all benefit from every effort at improving privacy on Windows.

In summary, two improvements were made in today's progress:

1. Psiphon & FreeCap were set to a static SOCKS5 port of 1080
2. Psiphon's advertisement web browser session was annulled

Please improve if you also need privacy in web browser sessions.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

UPDATE:

Since we're layering free no-registration VPNs onto open source proxies
onto free no-registration proxifiers onto free no-registration privacy extensions, it behooves us to be able to check proxy settings dynamically.

I never messed with proxies before, but darn'it, Windows splatters proxy settings all over the place, such that I needed a quick testing script.

Below is a script which simplifies visibility and control over what turns
out to be a devilishly fragmented system of how Windows defines proxies.
a. WinINET: Used by Internet Explorer, Chrome, and many apps;
b. WinHTTP: Used by system services and background tasks;
c. PAC/AutoDetect: Dynamic proxy configuration via commands.

Unfortunately, I've run into this proxy setup complexity due to using
A. VPN, which encrypts traffic and changes routing;
B. Psiphon, which tunnels & encrypts SOCKS5 & HTTPS traffic;
C. FreeCap, which redirects app traffic through SOCKS proxies.

The proxy.bat script included below checks all three methods at once
which gives us a clear snapshot of what the Windows proxy setup is.

To that end, we add a new command to run in your Win+R taskbar Runbox:
Win+R/Runbox > proxy
Which executes this added registry "App Paths" key:
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\proxy.exe
Which runs this proxy checking tool (see the tool below in its entirety):
C:\sys\bat\proxy.bat

===< cut here for proxy.bat >===
@echo off
REM proxy.bat 20250820 v1.0 iX Unified Windows check-proxy diagnostic tool
REM Reports: WinINET manual proxy, WinHTTP proxy, PAC/AutoDetect
REM 20250820 rev 1.0
REM HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\proxy.exe
REM Default=C:\sys\bat\proxy.bat ==> creates "Win+R > proxy" command
setlocal

set KEY="HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings"

echo ==============================================
echo WINDOWS PROXY CONFIGURATION CHECK
echo ==============================================

REM --- WinINET (manual proxy) ---
echo.
echo [1] WinINET / Internet Settings
for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v ProxyEnable 2^>nul') do set ProxyEnable=%%B
for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v ProxyServer 2^>nul') do set ProxyServer=%%B
if "%ProxyEnable%"=="0x1" (
echo Proxy is ENABLED
echo Proxy server: %ProxyServer%
) else (
echo Proxy is DISABLED
)

REM --- WinHTTP proxy ---
echo.
echo [2] WinHTTP proxy (system/background services)
netsh winhttp show proxy

REM --- PAC (Proxy Auto-Config) & AutoDetect ---
echo.
echo [3] PAC / AutoDetect
for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v AutoConfigURL 2^>nul') do set PACurl=%%B
for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v AutoDetect 2^>nul') do set AutoDetect=%%B

if defined PACurl (
echo PAC script set: %PACurl%
) else (
echo No PAC script URL found.
)

if "%AutoDetect%"=="0x1" (
echo Auto-detect is ENABLED
) else (
echo Auto-detect is DISABLED
)

echo.
echo ==============================================
echo Check complete.
echo ==============================================

endlocal
pause
===< cut here for proxy.bat >===

As always, this is posted to help others copy & paste
(where wasbit's kind and helpful advice is appreciated)
this script as part of their addition of privacy to Windows.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:14:50 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

I never messed with proxies before, but darn'it, Windows splatters proxy settings all over the place, such that I needed a quick testing script.

UPDATE

Turns out I didn't need to use FreeCap to proxify web browsers.

Mozilla-based browsers (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.) have their own internal proxy settings and, by default, ignore the Windows proxy unless you
explicitly tell them to use it.

Unlike Mozilla-based browsers which have those proxy GUIs, Chromium-based browsers do not have built-in proxy configuration GUIs.

So I thought I needed to proxify Chromium-based web browsers with FreeCap.
But I was wrong.

Chromium-based browsers apparently directly inherit proxy settings from the operating system, including:
a. From WinINET (used by most desktop apps)
b. Or from PAC scripts and AutoDetect
c. Or from manual proxy entries like that which Psiphon3 sets.
Win+I > Settings > Network & Internet > Proxy > Manual proxy settings
[http=127.0.0.1:30884;https=127.0.0.1:30884;socks=127.0.0.1:1080]

Also Chromium-based browsers can also be proxified at the command line:

brave.exe --proxy-server="http=127.0.0.1:30884;https=127.0.0.1:30884;socks=127.0.0.1:1080"

So I don't think we need FreeCap to proxify our DIY Chromium-based privacy browsers but we can still use FreeCap to proxify the Mozilla browsers.

However, we could also configure Firefox's own proxy settings (Preferences

Network Settings) to point directly to Psiphon's SOCKS5 port, skipping

FreeCap entirely.

If we want this to persist across profiles or installs, LibreWolf even lets
us set it in a librewolf.overrides.cfg file.

The steps are identical for Psiphon's proxy ports as for Mullvad's own
proxy, so the proxy settings are built into Mullvad as much as in Firefox.

So we no longer need FreeCap for proxifying either web browser platform.

FreeCap is still useful for apps that don't have built-in proxy support,
but apparently all web browsers have it - they just do it differently.

Chromium ==> respects Windows proxy settings (which Psiphon sets for you)
Mozilla ==> ignores Windows proxy settings (but has their own settings)

Who knew? Not me. The more I try to build a DIY privacy browser, the more I learn how different the two main web browser platforms are from each other.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 04:11:10 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Chromium ==> respects Windows proxy settings (which Psiphon sets for you)
Mozilla ==> ignores Windows proxy settings (but has their own settings)

UPDATE:

Aurgh. There are layers to this Windows socks5 stuff such that some apps
use one layer while other apps use a different layer. Who knew? Not me!

Everything in Windows having to do with privacy seems to have more layers.

I started checking whether non-browser apps used Windows proxy settings,
where it turns out pgms like Telegram & CoPilot are different than
browsers are (which themselves are different in how each handle proxy).

Running the previously posted "proxy.bat" showed that Psiphon modified the WinINET (user apps, browsers) proxy (127.0.0.1:17561 / socks at 127.0.0.1:1080) but not the WinHTTP (system/background services) proxy.

Sigh. Half a solution is not a full solution.
In fact, even with Psiphon, WinHTTP was was set to direct access (no
proxy).

The fix is to always copy the WinINET proxy config into WinHTTP.
Win+R > cmd {ctrl+shift+enter}

netsh winhttp import proxy source=ie

Now system services (which often ignore WinINET) will use
Psiphon's proxy as well. It also set a bypass list so that
local/private subnets avoid the proxy.

This is needed so that any Windows component that uses WinHTTP (like parts
of Copilot, Windows Update, some Microsoft Store traffic) will respect the Psiphon proxy, matching the existing Psiphon browser/app proxy settings.

To test:
a. Temporarily clear WinHTTP proxy:
C:\> netsh winhttp reset proxy

b. Run Win+R > proxy
The proxy.bat script should detect 'No WinHTTP proxy set'
and it should then import settings from WinINET automatically.
c. Set a custom WinHTTP proxy:
C:\> netsh winhttp set proxy proxy-server="http=1.2.3.4:8080"

d. Run Win+R > proxy
The proxy.bat script should detect an existing WinHTTP proxy
and therefore it should NOT overwrite it.

Below is the improved proxy.bat script to accomplish the sync above.

===< cut here for improved proxy.bat which handles more programs >===
@echo off
REM proxy.bat 20250820 v1.2
REM Use model: "Win+R > proxy" (diagnostic + proxy import if WinHTTP is
unset)
REM Unified Windows proxy diagnostic tool with WinHTTP sync safeguard
REM "Win+R > proxy /sync imports WinINET proxy directly into WinHTTP
REM Reports: WinINET manual proxy, WinHTTP proxy, PAC/AutoDetect
REM HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\proxy.exe
REM Default=C:\sys\batch\proxy.bat
REM That App Paths key creates the convenient "Win+R > proxy" command
REM
setlocal

:: --- Quick /sync mode ---
if /i "%~1"=="/sync" (
echo Syncing WinINET proxy into WinHTTP...
netsh winhttp import proxy source=ie
echo Done.
pause
exit /b
)

set KEY="HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings"

echo ==============================================
echo WINDOWS PROXY CONFIGURATION SET/CHECK/FIX
echo ==============================================

REM --- WinINET (manual proxy) ---
echo.
echo [1] WinINET / Internet Settings
for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v ProxyEnable

nul') do set ProxyEnable=%%B

for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v ProxyServer

nul') do set ProxyServer=%%B

if "%ProxyEnable%"=="0x1" (
echo Proxy is ENABLED
echo Proxy server: %ProxyServer%
) else (
echo Proxy is DISABLED
)

REM --- WinHTTP proxy ---
echo.
echo [2] WinHTTP proxy (system/background services)

REM Get current WinHTTP proxy setting
for /f "tokens=1,* delims=:" %%A in ('netsh winhttp show proxy ^| findstr
/R /C:"Proxy Server(s)"') do set curWinHTTP=%%B

REM Trim leading/trailing spaces
set curWinHTTP=%curWinHTTP:~1%

if "%curWinHTTP%"=="" (
echo No WinHTTP proxy set - importing from WinINET...
netsh winhttp import proxy source=ie >nul 2>&1
) else (
echo WinHTTP proxy already set - leaving as is.
)

REM Show current WinHTTP proxy after check/import
netsh winhttp show proxy

REM --- PAC (Proxy Auto-Config) & AutoDetect ---
echo.
echo [3] PAC / AutoDetect
for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v AutoConfigURL

nul') do set PACurl=%%B

for /f "tokens=2,* skip=2" %%A in ('reg query %KEY% /v AutoDetect 2^>nul')
do set AutoDetect=%%B

if defined PACurl (
echo PAC script set: %PACurl%
) else (
echo No PAC script URL found.
)

if "%AutoDetect%"=="0x1" (
echo Auto-detect is ENABLED
) else (
echo Auto-detect is DISABLED
)

echo.
echo ==============================================
echo Windows proxy set/check/fix complete.
echo ==============================================

endlocal
pause

===< cut here for improved proxy.bat which handles more programs >===
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marion wrote:

Unfortunately, I've run into this proxy setup complexity due to using
A. VPN, which encrypts traffic and changes routing;
B. Psiphon, which tunnels & encrypts SOCKS5 & HTTPS traffic;
C. FreeCap, which redirects app traffic through SOCKS proxie

I don't have the same focus or interest as you, but I try to learn from exploring some of the aspects of 'where you are going'.

The subject of socks5 vs VPN is interesting. Surprisingly a service that
sells socks5 service has a pretty good discussion and seems 'balanced'
rather than biased for socks5.

Then, one can turn to various other sources to try to learn about free
socks5 vs paid socks5. Those sources seem to say that 'generally' there
is a great deal of diff.

You tend to prioritize the 'free' aspect of things, and I can
'sympathize' w/ that because I'm of a very frugal nature myself, and
even MORE importantly, the complexity of being able to pay for some
anonymous persona w/ anonymous connectivity is another level of privacy
than just seeking out those avenues which do not require any
'registration' type identity which comes along w/ non-free.

In any case, while you have your 'free' characteristic turned on high, I believe you have to balance that w/ a significant degree of skepticism.
Some people are excessively skeptical of anything free; but I don't
think excess is a good thing.

https://www.proxyrack.com/blog/socks5-vs-vpn/

Socks5 Vs. VPN - WhatrCOs the Difference?

You have to go elsewhere to find out 'what's wrong w/ free socks5'.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Mike Easter wrote:

You tend to prioritize the 'free' aspect of things

However, you do NOT get your connectivity free; so you are having to
trust your identity w/ your connectivity provider. Fine. You /can/
conceal your internet content from your connectivity provider.

If you are going to trust your connectivity provider w/ your identity,
why not find a privacy service that you are willing to trust? It seems
like the same thing.

Then, you are paying for your connectivity and you are paying for your
privacy and that's about all you have to pay for; and the privacy is
MUCH cheaper than your connectivity.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2