"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:4q2893pqli1ing7l469pc0fo8qbnnbaneb@4ax.com...
> "Vanguard" wrote:
>
>>So I'm supposed to trust an unknown operator that runs a proxy server
>>hoping that they won't track me. I could chain the proxies hoping
>>that
>>they aren't in collusion with each other. And, of course, I
>>definitely
>>want to impact connection reliability and reduce speed along with
>>losing
>>use of some protocols, like HTTPS. Last I remember, cookies are saved
>>on my host, not on the proxy. I'm not remote desktoping to their
>>proxy
>>to run the browser from there. Javascript works quite nicely, if
>>enabled, to report your IP address.
>>
>>I don't have to worry about cookies. I manage them rather than let
>>them
>>clutter, and I only have to manage just a few for the domains that I
>>whitelist.
>
> Sounds to me like you are overly paranoid for some reason.


You're the one trying to use public proxies to circumvent banning and to
hide your IP address while browsing and I'm the one that's paranoid?
I'm the one saying that I'm not going to bother with the unreliability
and reduced speed of using proxies and that makes me paranoid? I'm the
one suggesting a smarter and MUCH simpler solution of whitelisting
cookies rather than blocking all of them or bothering to maintain a long
list of blocked domains for cookies and I'm the one that's paranoid?
You mention proxies in a discussion about cookies while totally
forgetting where the cookies get stored and that makes me paranoid to
point out your error in logic? There are so many other methods of
tracking users, like using interstitial pages, that is seems stupid to
spend much effort worrying about and managing cookies.

Yep, based on some weird criteria of yours, I must be paranoid. Oooh,
what was that? It was another more interesting thread.