On 02/05/16 15:07, stan wrote:
<<>>
> From their site:
>
> The search engine Ixquick (www.ixquick.com) is the world's
> most private search engine. It focuses on delivering great
> search results with the best possible privacy. Ixquick is
> known as StartPage in the United States (www.startpage.
On 02/04/16 21:42, Robin Laing wrote:
> I only see one that looks like it will give me Ask Me Every Time.
>
> Cookie Controller
>
.
this is true. if you want to make a selection every time you load a
site and change pages.
tried that some years ago with a diff add-on and soon tired of having
to
On 02/04/16 15:07, stan wrote:
<<>>
> I notice that lately they have begun to show google advertising with
> their results,
that is an interesting observation.
especially because i have run ixquick every day for past week and i saw
now such advertising.
granted, ixquick does show a star at en
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:48:56 -0700
Robin Laing wrote:
> Interesting that ixquick.com and startpage.com are both pointed to in
> this thread and they look exactly the same. Even their privacy
> statements are the same bar names.
>
> I think they are one and the same.
>
> Even their contact is t
On 05/02/16 23:30, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 05 February 2016, g sent:
something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
to make
On 02/06/16 00:30, Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 05 February 2016, g sent:
>> something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
>> written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
>> bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user havin
Allegedly, on or about 05 February 2016, g sent:
> something that amazes me is that with all the add-ons that have been
> written for cookie handling, none have a feature that ties in to url
> bar or bookmarks that will disable/enable cookies with out user having
> to make selection.
Allowing coo
On Fri, 05 Feb 2016 20:50:41 +1030
Tim wrote:
> I wonder how many sites actually do "content negotiation" properly?
> (The proper name for that activity.)
>
> Sites are well known to just give you their pages, and throw files at
> you, no matter what. Browsers are well known to say they accept
On 02/04/16 15:07, stan wrote:
<<>>
> I notice that lately they have begun to show google advertising with
> their results,
that is an interesting observation.
especially because i have run ixquick every day for past week and i saw
now such advertising.
granted, ixquick does show a star at en
On 02/04/16 21:42, Robin Laing wrote:
> I only see one that looks like it will give me Ask Me Every Time.
>
> Cookie Controller
>
.
this is true. if you want to make a selection every time you load a
site and change pages.
tried that some years ago with a diff add-on and soon tired of having
to
On 02/04/16 19:48, Robin Laing wrote:
<<>>
> Interesting that ixquick.com and startpage.com are both pointed to in
> this thread and they look exactly the same. Even their privacy statements
> are the same bar names
>
.
have you run a check via a url/ip/whois server?
i believe not. ;-)
--
pe
Tim:
>> I wonder if any browsers have a randomiser in them to jiggle the
>> tell-tale signs that browser fingerprinting makes use of?
stan:
> I'm not aware of a plug in that does that, though I think it is
> possible to change some of the information the browser gives out. The
> trouble is that w
On 02/05/2016 01:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 11:11 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches
or even your IP
Do you believe that? Or anything said to you about a website's aims?
And even if it is a true statement, it's only valid
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 11:11 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches
> or even your IP
Do you believe that? Or anything said to you about a website's aims?
And even if it is a true statement, it's only valid *then*. They may do
something els
On 03/02/16 07:33, g wrote:
On 02/03/16 04:35, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
dive.
I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
manager add-ons?
h
On 04/02/16 12:11, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/04/2016 06:50 AM, Tom Rivers wrote:
On 2/4/2016 9:36 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
any paid web search engines?
I don't know about search engines that cost money, but I do know of a
fre
On 04/02/16 14:01, stan wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:47:00 +1030
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:18 -0700, stan wrote:
I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking.
Hmm, I reckon they probably still do that.
I'd agree. But my bank, to increase security, tried to use
On 04/02/16 09:04, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
well:
https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
I d
On 03/02/16 03:35, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
dive.
I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
manager add-ons?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US
On Fri, 05 Feb 2016 02:34:59 +1030
Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
> > I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
> > well:
> >
> > https://duckduckgo.com/about
>
> I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. M
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:47:00 +1030
Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:18 -0700, stan wrote:
> > I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking.
>
> Hmm, I reckon they probably still do that.
I'd agree. But my bank, to increase security, tried to use both a
regular cookie and
On 02/04/2016 11:14 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
DuckDuckGo is also HTTPS, if you were implying it was not. I
bookmarked it. The customization of DDG and the range of keyboard
shorcuts available are already good reasons to use it over Google. So
far, I haven't noticed any problems with it.
No,
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
>
> Not only is it https, it promises to keep no records of your searches or
> even your IP. Yes, it takes advantage of Google, but all Google learns is
> that they searched for something, not who they sent the results to. Rather
> like an anonymous
On 02/04/2016 06:50 AM, Tom Rivers wrote:
On 2/4/2016 9:36 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
any paid web search engines?
I don't know about search engines that cost money, but I do know of a
free one that is privacy oriented and i
On 16/02/05 02:34, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
well:
https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
I hav
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent:
>> Tim, it's not "just a privacy issue" for the average person. Being
>> tracked **is** an issue, even if you have not committed any serious
>> crimes and are not researching anything ille
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent:
> Tim, it's not "just a privacy issue" for the average person. Being
> tracked **is** an issue, even if you have not committed any serious
> crimes and are not researching anything illegal, you should be able to
> find web pages anony
Allegedly, on or about 04 February 2016, Tom Rivers sent:
> I do know of a free one that is privacy oriented and it works really
> well:
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/about
I can't say that I find them anywhere near as good as Google. Much as
it pains me to say it.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
Basic keyboard shortcuts work, calculator works. Will try it for some time now.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 2/4/2016 9:36 AM, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
any paid web search engines?
I don't know about search engines that cost money, but I do know of a
free one that is privacy oriented and it works really well:
https://duckduckgo.
After (two?) mentions to Google search, I wonder if any you know of
any paid web search engines? I've used Google search 140 times on the
last 24 hours according to my history, so if they ask for more than
some cents per query I wouldn't be able to afford it.
Tim, it's not "just a privacy issue" f
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:18 -0700, stan wrote:
> I doubt that you are experiencing traditional cookie tracking.
Hmm, I reckon they probably still do that.
> There are two other ways of tracking that are much more effective:
> flash cookies and html5 storage.
Since I block Flash, by default, few
Tim:
>> Unfortunately, this means you get tracked, and you get more internet
stan:
> A side note. You probably already know this, but if you don't want to
> be tracked, Google is not your friend.
Yes. Unfortunately, it is the best search engine I've played with.
Their old "don't be evil" mantra
On 02/03/2016 09:54 AM, ven...@billoblog.com wrote:
This is a little off-topic for fedora, but since you mentioned it I have
to ask. I use Ghostery a lot. Is PrivacyBadger compatible with it, or
is it a one-or-the-other-but-not-both kind of thing?
I use both without trouble, if that helps.
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:54:33 -0600 (CST)
ven...@billoblog.com wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, stan wrote:
>
> >
> > If you don't go with PrivacyBadger, Ghostery is also a good way to
> > block third party tracking sites, though it uses a look up list
> > rather than real time determination.
> >
> > H
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, stan wrote:
If you don't go with PrivacyBadger, Ghostery is also a good way to
block third party tracking sites, though it uses a look up list rather
than real time determination.
HTH
This is a little off-topic for fedora, but since you mentioned it I have
to ask. I use
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:25:33 +1030
Tim wrote:
> Unfortunately, this means you get tracked, and you get more internet
A side note. You probably already know this, but if you don't want to
be tracked, Google is not your friend. Their product is your privacy.
They pay for it with lots of free ser
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:25:33 +1030
Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 02 February 2016, Robin Laing sent:
> > There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of
> > cookie requests.
>
> Sometimes I think sites do that on purpose, to attack people who
> selectively choose their coo
What about adding one of those sophisticated cookie managers to the browser
as default?
Just an idea.
Sylvia
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 03.02.2016, Sylvia Sánchez wrote:
>
> > And it's impossible to add a workaround instead of taking options away?
>
> A simple count
On 03.02.2016, Sylvia Sánchez wrote:
> And it's impossible to add a workaround instead of taking options away?
A simple counter would do..
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
F
On 02/03/16 04:35, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
>> This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
>> dive.
>
> I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
> manager add-ons?
> https://addons.mozi
And it's impossible to add a workaround instead of taking options away?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guideli
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Sylvia Sánchez wrote:
> So, because some websites, purposely or not, are bad designed, the web
> browser must change?
Yes. Logically, yes. They are web browsers. Fully fledged humongous
programs that do everything you need to **browse** the web as it is.
Those web
So, because some websites, purposely or not, are bad designed, the web
browser must change?
F*** logic! At least, they could warn us. If I don't receive this
email I would never know.
Cheers,
Sylvia
PS: sorry for the cursing.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscrib
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Tim wrote:
>
> It's just a shame there aren't reversed HTTP error codes that hit the
> server. Error 101 your site is fucked.
>
It is a shame crappy sites (not to mention crappy software) like that
exist. I am happy not to be the responsible for this shit.
P.S.:
Allegedly, on or about 02 February 2016, Robin Laing sent:
> There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of
> cookie requests.
Sometimes I think sites do that on purpose, to attack people who
selectively choose their cookies.
I used to use the option to ask about all cookies, bu
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:13:30PM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
> This is a pain. I am frustrated and my productivity has taken a nose
> dive.
I'm curious. Why not use one of the many more sophisticated cookie
manager add-ons?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=cookie&appver=30.0&pla
On 02/02/16 23:02, Robin Laing wrote:
On 02/02/16 21:58, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Why would they remove it? Was it a big maintenance burden? Seems
something reasonable to keep around.
There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of cookie
requests. So to fix that problem the
On 02/02/16 21:58, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Why would they remove it? Was it a big maintenance burden? Seems
something reasonable to keep around.
There was an issue with poorly written sites opening hundreds of cookie
requests. So to fix that problem they now have two choices.
Accept or do
Why would they remove it? Was it a big maintenance burden? Seems
something reasonable to keep around.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproje
For those that like to control how sites track you, you may want to
think again about using Firefox 44.
As of now, the cookies settings don't have the option to "Ask Me Every Time"
Choice is to accept or deny all cookies from a site.
I for one, like to know if I am being asked for cookies or n
51 matches
Mail list logo
