(Page 3 of 3)
To cover that possibility, Tor can be used in conjunction with a "filtering proxy" called Privoxy. Filtering proxies are servers that block or allow the transmission of information, depending on how they are configured by administrators. Privoxy, for example, hides the information your computer sends through HTTP. Privoxy can also manage cookies and block pop-ups and other ads, but the HTTP filtering is what keeps the user's information private. Installing and using Tor and Privoxy, though, require a good deal of computer savvy -- it's tricky for the average user.
For occasional use -- say to check out a web site blocked by your company's firewall -- you can use a standard proxy server (a filtering proxy is one type of proxy server). These are services or Web pages you can navigate to and enter a URL; the server will then send the request for the page under its own IP address and return the results to you. Many proxy servers exist, some commercial, such as Megaproxy.com, and some free, such as Anonymouse.org and Proxybuster.net. (Ironically, one can easily search Google for "proxy server.")
The best known proxy server is probably the free Anonymizer, although it's a "single hop" server, which means there's only one step between you and the target site -- not as secure as Tor's scheme. Another downside is that Anonymizer runs on a single server, owned by San Diego-based Anonymizer Inc., which can make secure browsing a slow process. The company also sells subscriptions to the service, which grants access with greater bandwidth.
The Java Anonymous Proxy is another proxy system that offers anonymous Web browsing. It also provides anonymity for other Internet services, such as e-mail and messaging; but it does so through a cascade of servers, where a single server picks the chain of other servers. Although data is encrypted, the first server knows the path the data will take -- providing one point where users' identities could be revealed.
All this can keep your identity private while browsing online; but there are still many ways nonexperts can expose themselves online: through insecure e-mails, spyware, file-sharing applications, and viruses. Users should ask themselves: What's at stake when I browse, and how much care do I need to take to maintain my privacy? To paraphrase slightly a famous line: The price of anonymity is eternal vigilance.
Home page image courtesy of Brian Stauffer.
Illegitimate pharmacies account for 90 percent of drug ads on Microsoft's Bing, according to a new report.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Alan Root)
Another strategy
There used to be a site that explained somewhat precisely how to build a nuclear device. It started with the words: "First, you wash your hands". Just suppose a few million of us infrequently logged on to so-called "forbidden" sites or sent out diversionary email messages. That is just one of several ways we need to develop to win the contest in favor of more privacy and less prying into other people's business under the emotion-laden guise of "national security" or "anti-terrorism".
Reply
Guest (Gabe)
The only time spam is good...
Spam is the cancer of the internet, and we all hate it. But if every user, ocasionally sent out random messages with NSA catch phrases like "assasinate Bush", "blow up Congress" etc., then their electronic hoovering machinery would just get clogged with meaningless stuff. Eventually, they would have to give up monitoring regular citizens, otherwise they'd go bankrupt. This would be a peaceful, electronic civil disobediance against Big Brother.
Reply
Guest (Wade Roush)
Bad idea
The government shouldn't be snooping on average citizens, but I have to say that Alan and Gabe's suggestions sound very bad to me. By spamming the Internet with meaningless, diversionary messages bearing terrorist-related catch phrases, you would just be providing cover for real terrorists, who would be able to slip their own messages through the network more easily.
Reply
Guest (Gabe)
So what is the solution?
Obviously, no normal citizen would ever want to help a terrorist. But governments or corporations snooping on everyday citizens under the pretext of defense is a horrible scenario too. Besides, the privacy methods outlined in this article are impractical for the masses anyway. It's more likely that a terrorist would use them instead. And then we are back at where we started :(
Reply
Guest (hewhoknows)
something
> that's because the war on terror is at least in part, a war on individuals. Those conducting the war are organized. Individuals are not - by definition.
Reply