Talk:Anonymous web browsing
Edited to make the applications less POV and ethnocentric.
HTTP headers can reveal stuff too.
Unclear on "traffic monitoring"
This statement seems a bit sketchy to me:
- [It] is used to circumvent traffic monitoring by organisations which want to find out or control which web sites employees visit.
Judging from the statement, it seems to be talking about outgoing traffic monitoring by corporations trying to restrict access to non-work-related sites. However, from the description at the top and the actual article on traffic monitoring (actually the "website monitoring" one, the closest match), it could also be talking about incoming traffic monitoring. Any comments here?
[I forgot to sign this comment which was made at 09:00, 13 October 2006 by supreme_geek_overlord]
Can someone familiar with the article verify whether these external links is spam or not? A lot of them are links to software products with descriptions like: "Protect your Online Identity. Get Informed Here" and "Fresh Proxy List Daily Updated!". They wreak of ads. If any of those were valid, just add them back in. Spellcast 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge this article and rename it.
The Anonymizer article and this one have a lot of the same information. I propose renaming Anonymizer to "Internet anonymity" and having a section in that article about anonymous web browsing. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggested on the Anonymizer article talk page that it be re-named "anonymous web browsing", before I found this page. You're right, the info is the same, more or less. Hatfields (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why are people so slow to merge things on here that clearly should be merged? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
What's that one "asshole theory" I've seen mentioned here on the site? Something about internet + anonymity = asshole. It ought to be mentioned (or at least linked) in this article. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
My sympathies are with Americans in Canada blocked from Hulu and such ... as this is more an issue of cable oligopolies and not copyright and royalties
G. Robert Shiplett 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Why would qhul be in the SOURCES section and not, say, free-hideip ?
Why would any of them be listed except as clearly identified services or products ?
And not as "Sources" - see wikipedia guidelines on sources of factual information
Worse the qhul reference is not found by a wikipedia search.
G. Robert Shiplett 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)