Jap + proxyweb.net

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by PeterP1999, Sep 12, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PeterP1999

    PeterP1999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    Hi,

    Ignoramous here.

    Firstly, is proxyweb.net oK? i.e. does it reliably do what it says 'on the box'? It seemed to work...

    Re Jap, (and yes I've seen the thread :)) but it still worries me. I've just tried it, and with all but the Dresden-Dresden I get about 300 users (Dresdon's usually about 600). Can't help thinking it be safer amongst thousands. In the help about using your connection to forward other Jap users, it explicitely warns you you could be accused of a crime committed by someone else. Not planning to use that, makes me think they are monitoring use and ready to pounce!

    Would it be sound to use Jap and surf via proxyweb.net. i.e. would Proxyweb stop Jap knowing what site's you're visiting and Jap stop your ISP knowing? I'm only interested in Mac os 9 stuff btw.
     
  2. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Since Proxyweb is a webpage, you could access it via JAP though likely using both would likely result in very slow connections. JAP would see you accessing Proxyweb (though not the destination URLs) while Proxyweb would see incoming access from JAP.

    Downsides? Aside from speed, you have Proxyweb's advertising (which gets refreshed regularly cutting speed further) which you can't block via a hosts file since all your access is going through JAP. Ad-filtering proxies won't work either since all your traffic is encrypted (bar Proxomitron which can filter SSL if you set it up right).

    If you do use Proxomitron - take care that you are not using any web filters that remove "tracking links" (included in third-party filtersets like JD5000's and Grypen's). Proxyweb works by altering in-page links to redirect to Proxyweb but a tracking link filter would change these back to the original link - meaning that any links you followed would then go to the original page (via JAP only) rather than the Proxywebbed page.

    It would probably be easier to just set up Tor (though you could use Proxyweb with this also...).
     
  3. PeterP1999

    PeterP1999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    Thanks Paranoid. But looks like Tor only does Max OS X, not 9.

    To be honest though, on reflection I'd be surprised in the present climate if the security services aren't somehow monitoring all the traffic through these anonymizing systems. Mightn't users be a self selecting group who are guaranteed to have no privacy?
     
  4. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Without encryption, your traffic is sent in the clear - that means you have no privacy at all. With encryption, someone has to go to some effort (considerable effort as previous events have shown) to find out what you are doing.
     
  5. PeterP1999

    PeterP1999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    Agreed, but at least you are but one amongst many (thousands presumably) with an ISP. Using Jap I had around ~300 other users on my thingy (the most other than for the thingy with only one er..what ever it is - see, "ignoramus" wasn't false modesty).

    I'm just thinking, if it's possible for 'BB' to directly intercept communications going in and out of anonymizer computer(s), then such free, encrypting services would be the very first place on the whole internet I'd look if I was after catching criminals - which of course means we all get watched and inspected. Somebody would have to be specifically interested in an individual or that individual be unlucky to be randomly looked at on an ISP, no? Just thinking aloud, you understand. :)
     
  6. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    For law enforcement, the best way to catch criminals would be to monitor access to specific sites, not trawling anonymising systems which would require international co-operation, traffic analysis and the ability to crack strong encryption.

    Of course, those whose traffic was sent unencrypted could have their activities "trawled" very easily so whether you consider yourself better protected by "hiding in full view" or being in a group with a strong level of protection is your decision. Finally law enforcement is only one of many groups that may wish to monitor traffic - if you have real reasons to consider them your greatest threat then that is solely for you to sort out.
     
  7. PeterP1999

    PeterP1999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5
    Well, I was just addressing the principle of anonymity. But then again, for instance, I consider my 'Islamaphobic' credentials (to use one of these made up PC words) to be pretty impeccable. But having visited a few Islamic sites looking for info to throw into the debate, you never know in this climate, someone somewhere might get the wrong end of the stick and think I'm a radical sympathizer..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.