How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on Android or iOS

[arlen holder]

How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on iOS/Android

I admit when I "first" looked at VPN, it seemed overwhelmingly confusing
(many years ago), mostly because, as it turns out, rolling your own VPN
server is completely different from simply "pointing" to a public VPN
service already set up.

But nowadays, it's _really _simple (it's just two files).
1. All you need is a "text file" (called something like filename.ovpn).
2. And the VPN client (called something like "openvpn.apk")

That's it.
o Bear in mind the process is the same on any computer.
a. All you need is a text file from any public vpn service
b. And a client that respects the "protocol" of that public vpn service

Once you're "good" at VPN, you can make _plenty_ of decisions.
o Those decisions could take the rest of your life to hone

For example, let me save you weeks of effort picking "protocols":
o Use the "openvpn" protocol

And, for example, I'll save you weeks of picking "services"
o Use the freeopenvpn service (or any other openvpn service you want)
<https://www.freeopenvpn.org/logpass/usa.php>

If you want to "learn", I suggest you simply "play" with it for a while:
o First you get it working & you "play" with it for a few weeks
o Then, after you're familiar, then you bother choosing "stuff".

I repeat:
o Choosing the "best" VPN service is a completely different question

See these threads for more details on choosing the "best" VPN service:
o VPN "How to"?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/K91Qh0bv9s4/h4aFVEv1BAAJ>
o Recommended VPN
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/uj7MBiRMzqM/CQh8rxKuBAAJ>

For now, if anyone here is a beginner, my suggestion is this:
A. Download a free text file (e.g., from https://www.freeopenvpn.org)
B. Install any free openvpn client on Google Play

A quick search on Google Play finds this Android client:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.openvpn.openvpn>

A quick search for the iOS equivalent finds this iOS client:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/openvpn-connect/id590379981?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4>

It's apparently the "official" openvpn client for both iOS & Android:
<https://openvpn.net/vpn-server-resources/connecting-to-access-server-with-android/>
<https://www.howtogeek.com/215730/how-to-connect-to-a-vpn-from-your-iphone-or-ipad/>

You should be up and running in less time than it took to write this:
o The client will read the openvpn file and you should be set up.

If you know of a better, more reliable, faster openvpn service,
just let us know, as that's NOT the main topic here (where you can
freely pick among a plethora of free openvpn services out there
for "playing" around just to "get your feet wet" and acclimated to
how it all works.

Once you are up and running in just a minute or three, _then_
you can spend the rest of your life choosing among the various
services out there.

NOTE: To post this, I used a freeopenvpn.org ovpn file, which worked fine.
(You have to just be intelligent about finding it on their web pages.)

[nospam]

In article <q4c287$kbn$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on iOS/Android

another woefully inaccurate ramble.

> I admit when I "first" looked at VPN, it seemed overwhelmingly confusing
> (many years ago), mostly because, as it turns out, rolling your own VPN
> server is completely different from simply "pointing" to a public VPN
> service already set up.

not really. setting up a vpn server is actually very easy, and then you
just 'point' the client at it, as you would with a vpn service.

> But nowadays, it's _really _simple (it's just two files).

actually only one file, sometimes none.

> 1. All you need is a "text file" (called something like filename.ovpn).
> 2. And the VPN client (called something like "openvpn.apk")

#2 is not required.

> That's it.
> o Bear in mind the process is the same on any computer.

nope.

> a. All you need is a text file from any public vpn service

not always.

> b. And a client that respects the "protocol" of that public vpn service

that part is true.

obviously you want to use the same protocol at both ends.

> Once you're "good" at VPN, you can make _plenty_ of decisions.
> o Those decisions could take the rest of your life to hone

nonsense, and there's nothing to be 'good' at.

> For example, let me save you weeks of effort picking "protocols":
> o Use the "openvpn" protocol

openvpn is one of many choices, not always the best one, and quickly
becoming not a very good one.

> And, for example, I'll save you weeks of picking "services"
> o Use the freeopenvpn service (or any other openvpn service you want)
> <https://www.freeopenvpn.org/logpass/usa.php>

*very* bad choice.

>
> I repeat:
> o Choosing the "best" VPN service is a completely different question

there is no 'best vpn'.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:27:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

> setting up a vpn server is actually very easy, and then you
> just 'point' the client at it, as you would with a vpn service.

Hi nospam,

*PLEASE PLAY YOUR SILLY APPLE MARKETING GAMES ELSEWHERE NOSPAM*

I know exactly the silly Apple Marketing Propaganda games you're playing,
even as the beginners here likely do not.

By you playing your silly Apple Marketing Propaganda games, you're only
going to _confuse_ the poor beginner - who doesn't realize the silly games
you play constantly nospam.

The difference between you and adults is very simple:
o You post with absolutely _zero_ helpful intent.
And...
o You can _only_ speak EXACTLY what Apple Marketing wants you to.

For example...
o Let's see _your_ tutorial for setting up a vpn server.
o Let's see _you_ use the Apple client for the openvpn protocol.

HINT: You've never written a single helpful tutorial in your life.
HINT: The built-in Apple clients are brain dead with respect to openvpn.

Note to beginners:
1. This nospam guy does not post with _helpful_ intent.
2. This nospam guy only spouts Apple Marketing Propaganda.
3. To understand him, is to understand Apple Marketing Propaganda.

To wit:
A. He knows that Apple has a built-in VPN client
B. But he omits that it's brain dead with respect to the openvpn protocol
C. And he claims server setup is easy; but it's off completely off topic

To understand nospam is to know these two facts about him:
a. He _never_ posts with _any_ purposefully helpful intent, and,
b. He can _only_ spew Apple Marketing Propaganda.

Therefore, he _denies_ all facts out of hand, that don't fit perfectly into
his imaginary belief system which "is" Apple Marketing Propaganda.

>> But nowadays, it's _really _simple (it's just two files).
> actually only one file, sometimes none.

You childishly post with _zero_ helpful intent, nospam.

While we all know that Apple provides a (brain dead, IMHO), client,
the fact that it's brain dead, and the fact that it's proprietary, is lost
on you nospam.

All you _can_ do is spout meaningless Apple Marketing Propaganda.

The fact that the "two files" can be bundled into one is something we all
know, nospam, where, for example, in this helpful suggestion from Chris in
Makiti, it's likely only one file "bundle":
o What are the most popular and safe VPN apps?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/cWh9F_2Njck/58gbmU34EQAJ>

However, the _reason_ for explaining it's "two" files in openvpn is that
we're trying to be helpful to beginners who may have trouble separating the
two concepts of:
o The client, from
o The configuration

For example, for the openvpn protocol...
o The user can download _any_ desired openvpn client application
o And the user can download _any_ desired openvpn config file

Notice that you, nospam, always follow Apple Marketing Propaganda,
so I fully understand why you lean toward not only proprietary solutions,
but also to other protocols than the openvpn protocol.

*PLEASE PLAY YOUR SILLY APPLE MARKETING GAMES ELSEWHERE NOSPAM*

Specifically, a lot of beginners get hung up on the _difference_,
where, for example, VPN providers try to get you to use their proprietary
client, and where I'm trying to be helpful by suggesting that _any_ openvpn
VPN client that the user likes should work.

Hence, I am being purposefully helpful for beginners by distinguishing that
they don't need to use a proprietary openvpn client if they don't want to.

You're just trying to "prove me wrong", which is a childish trait of yours,
where you _should_ be spending your efforts being _purposefully_ helpful.

>> 1. All you need is a "text file" (called something like filename.ovpn).
>> 2. And the VPN client (called something like "openvpn.apk")
>
> #2 is not required.

Notice to adults.

What nospam is doing, which is _all_ that nospam does, is:
a. He's purposefully playing silly games around Apple Marketing Propaganda
b. He's clearly not posting with _any_ helpful intent whatsoever
c. With the result that his posts are intended to confuse beginners.

Remember, nospam _never_ posts with purposefully helpful intent.
o His only goal appears to be to spew Apple Marketing Propaganda

The easiest way to prove nospam wrong is just using these 3 words:
o Name just one

To wit, tell us, nospam, how are you going to use the openvpn protocol
without installing an openvpen client on _any_ platform?

Tell us nospam: What openvpn client is native on any platform?
o Name just one

>> That's it.
>> o Bear in mind the process is the same on any computer.
>
> nope.

Again, nospam is playing silly Apple Marketing Propaganda games.

>> a. All you need is a text file from any public vpn service
>
> not always.

Constantly, nospam plays his silly Apple Marketing Propaganda games.

>> Once you're "good" at VPN, you can make _plenty_ of decisions.
>> o Those decisions could take the rest of your life to hone
>
> nonsense, and there's nothing to be 'good' at.

Notice that nospam _never_ posts with helpful intent.
This guy nospam simply denies everything he doesn't like out of hand.

The best way to understand nospam's posts is simply to think of nospam as
being paid by Apple Marketing to simply deny anything that is said on this
ng that doesn't fit perfectly into the Apple Marketing Propaganda.

>> For example, let me save you weeks of effort picking "protocols":
>> o Use the "openvpn" protocol
>
> openvpn is one of many choices, not always the best one, and quickly
> becoming not a very good one.

Hehhehheh,.,.. take a _guess_ as to why nopspam says that?

HINT: Apple native clients are brain dead with respect to openvpn support.

*PLEASE PLAY YOUR SILLY APPLE MARKETING GAMES ELSEWHERE NOSPAM*

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on iOS/Android

The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
using one.

There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.

Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.

https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 Don't use VPN
services.

--
Mike Easter

[nospam]

In article <q4c7qs$v4m$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > setting up a vpn server is actually very easy, and then you
> > just 'point' the client at it, as you would with a vpn service.
> >

> *PLEASE PLAY YOUR SILLY APPLE MARKETING GAMES ELSEWHERE NOSPAM*

nowhere did i mention anything apple.

rest of your repetitive idiocy snipped.

[nospam]

In article <gctnkh...@mid.individual.net>, Mike Easter

<Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:

> > How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on
> > iOS/Android
>
> The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
> using one.

false.

> There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.

false.

> Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.
>
> https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 Don't use VPN
> services.

complete rubbish.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 10:31:45 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
> using one.

Hi Mike,

THANK YOU for your wonderful purposefully helpful information!
o We've both been on Usenet for _decades_ so this isn't our first rodeo.

I always love when you post because of two great traits about you!
o You _always_ post with purposefully helpful intent, and,
o You almost always bring in a great set of useful points of view.

And, as you're well aware, I post from thousands of different IP addresses
where you and others on the linux newsgroup (such as Marek Novotny) helped
suggest, write, test, and improve the networking scripts to wget,
geolocate, and organize over six thousand openvpn config files found daily
on the Internet.

For example, as I recall, the last time you and I discussed "public VPN
servers", you provided an extremely helpful link that compared scores of
"stuff" that an expert would consider when deciding which VPN is "better
for him".

I even referred to that conversation earlier in an Android-only post on
this topic, over here, where a beginner asked a beginner question.

o What are the most popular and safe VPN apps?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/cWh9F_2Njck>

The point of view you brought up then was that there are a lot of
considerations to assess when an expert chooses a VPN, including, but
certainly not even close to limiting those questions to...
o What is my purpose of wanting VPN (e.g., privacy, security, etc.)
o What is my cost model that fits my purpose above
o What protocol should I choose that fits my purpose above
etc.

For me, for example, my "purpose" is simply to use VPN as a free IP-address
obfuscation "proxy" while posting on Usenet, where, if I were using a web
browser, these work fine for Windows users (some work on Mac/Linux too):
o Tor Browser Bundle <https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en>
o Opera VPN Browser <https://www.opera.com/computer/features/free-vpn>
o Epic Privacy Browser <https://www.epicbrowser.com/>
etc.

Hence, I fully appreciate and comprehend why you helpfully state:
o "The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service"
Since, for _my_ purpose, I don't _need_ a VPN service either.

What I need is a free proxy, do you agree?

> There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.

This is likely true - where the "solution" depends on what any particular
user feels is his "problem set".

For me, I post to Usenet using a variety of free nntp servers where my
"problem set" is simply to obfuscate my IP address using any free
"obfuscation service".

Do you have a recommended free "obfuscation service" that does NOT use VPN?

> Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.
> https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29
> Don't use VPN services.

Thank you for that contrarian view, where the solution should always be
included, as simply denying one point of view is welcome, but the next
question has to be "What's a viable alternative that solves the problem?".

Reading the suggested article
o Don't use VPN services.
<https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29>

It starts off saying exactly what we just said above, which is:
o VPN is fine as a "private" (i.e., internal) security solution
o VPN is less fine as a "glorified proxy" (which is why I use it)

The reason using VPN as a "glorified proxy" is bad, they say, is:
o The VPN service can "see" all your traffic (which is true)

The article goes into further detail to back that up, but that's the net.

However, one _interesting_ observation is that the other POV said:
o "IP address is a largely irrelevant metric in modern tracking systems"

BTW, that's one reason why I switch Usenet headers all the time, Mike.
o Tracking systems use a _variety_ of methods to track us

That alternative point of view (POV) argues:
o "Marketers will almost always use some kind of other metric
o [than IP address] to identify and distinguish you"
However, their "example" is browser specific, and not Usenet specific.
<https://panopticlick.eff.org/>

Your purposefully helpful suggested article covers WHEN to use VPN:
o When you're on a known hostile network (e.g., a public AP)
o When you need to use it as a proxy against less-well-funded adversaries

What? A proxy? Did I hear proxy?
o They didn't _use_ the word "proxy"; but that's what they said!

What they literally said was that you should use a proxy instead.

That's all well and good, but that still leaves the open question:
o Name just one

That is, for Usenet, what free proxy exists?
o Name just one

Mike ... that's not argumentative. It's just _agreeing_ that a VPN is
overkill for Usenet if all you want is a "proxy", but, for Usenet,
do you know of any free proxy that I can use?

If a reliable free fast Usenet proxy existed, I'd use it. :)

BTW, their rational for using a proxy instead of a VPN is good
o They say use a "specific" proxy for a "specific" purpose
o Instead of using VPN for "all" purposes

However good that advice is, I have a specific purpose problem set:
o What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

[Mike Easter]

nospam wrote:

> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
>> using one.
>
> false.
>
>> There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.
>
> false.
>
>> Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 Don't use VPN
>> services.
>
> complete rubbish.
>

Your rebuttal or counterargument lacks any substance.

The comments section of the article, of which there are many, did a much
better job of debating the points.

The article concedes that there is a 'place' for some VPN, while it also
makes arguments for alternatives with suggestions about how those
alternatives might be accomplished.

It also mentions the 'dangers' of indiscriminate or unwise VPN use.

--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> What? A proxy? Did I hear proxy?

> o They didn't_use_ the word "proxy"; but that's what they said!

>
> What they literally said was that you should use a proxy instead.

No; actually he /did/ actually mention the word proxy as one alternative
for certain circumstances, but he also more expressly mentioned the
alternative of setting up one's own VPN for some circumstances.

That VPS alternative was also discussed in the comments section
including those who had done so and what their costs were. Also the
comments addressed the limitations or drawbacks of the VPS as well.

--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:41 -0500, nospam wrote:

> nowhere did i mention anything apple.

Hi nospam,

This isn't our first rodeo with you, nospam.
o You have _never_ posted with purposefully helpful intent, and,
o All your posts are always spewing Apple Marketing Propaganda fud

A beginner wouldn't know this fact, which you & I know, nospam:
o The native Apple VPN app is utterly brain dead with respect to openvpn

Hence, every one of your unhelpful rebuttals _ignored_ that salient fact.
o The native Apple solution is brain dead with respect to openvpn, nospam.

Since you _know_ the Apple solution is brain dead, you hid that fact.
o All your flat denials _hid_ that salient fact from the user, nospam.

To wit, name a _single_ native Apple VPN client that supports openvpn!
o Name just one

[nospam]

In article <gctpu7...@mid.individual.net>, Mike Easter

<Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote:

> >
> >> The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
> >> using one.
> >
> > false.
> >
> >> There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.
> >
> > false.
> >
> >> Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.
> >>
> >> https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 Don't use VPN
> >> services.
> >
> > complete rubbish.
> >
> Your rebuttal or counterargument lacks any substance.

the article is what lacks substance and also contradicts itself.

> The comments section of the article, of which there are many, did a much
> better job of debating the points.

yep, several comments showed just how bogus the article really is.

the main problem is that it lumps all vpns together and because a few
are bad, it assumes all of them are.

it is also incorrect about how they work.

like everything, some vpns are good and others are bad. some are in the
middle. different vpn services prioritize different things. no vpn is
best for everyone or in every situation. many people use more than one,
depending on the situation.

some vpns log and will happily hand them over, while others do not log
and can't hand over anything.

some vpns are a front to get marketing data, such as facebook's.

it depends on one's threat model. using a vpn used at a public hotspot
to avoid someone at the next table snooping is very different than
using a vpn to while committing a crime which is different than using a
vpn to circumvent geoblocks.

it also makes some factually incorrect statements:
VPNs don't provide security. They are just a glorified proxy.
...
So yes, VPN services do serve a purpose - it's just one that benefits
the provider, not you.

that is bullshit. they *do* provide security and they *do* benefit the
user.

> The article concedes that there is a 'place' for some VPN,

in other words, it's contradicting itself.

> while it also
> makes arguments for alternatives with suggestions about how those
> alternatives might be accomplished.

proxies have their place but are not a replacement for vpn.

> It also mentions the 'dangers' of indiscriminate or unwise VPN use.

none of which is realistic. vpn providers don't 'mess with your
traffic'. if they did, they would find they're losing customers.

nobody said a vpn is guaranteed safety.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:29:55 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

>> What they literally said was that you should use a proxy instead.
>
> No; actually he /did/ actually mention the word proxy as one alternative
> for certain circumstances, but he also more expressly mentioned the
> alternative of setting up one's own VPN for some circumstances.

Hi Mike,
Yes. I know. I know exactly what the article said. ;)

My point was to be a bit humourful' in stating that they essentially said
to use a VPN as a proxy just after they said not to use a VPN as a proxy.

That bit of irony aside, setting up one's own VPN is, as you are well
aware, is a solution to a completely different problem set than the
relatively simple problem set of a proxy to obfuscate your IP address.

Since I'm a solutions-based person, as you're aware, Mike, I only want a
solution, where, in the case of nospam, he denies every fact flatly, out of
hand, but he can't provide a solution.

So what good is denying the existing working solution ... without ...
o Without providing a working solution as an alternative?

That is, it's well & good to advise:
o "Don't use VPN if all you want is an IP proxy" ... if ... if ... if ...
o That's great advice ... if ... if all you use is a web browser.

But, we're on Usenet right now.
o What free proxy works for free Usenet posting?

> That VPS alternative was also discussed in the comments section
> including those who had done so and what their costs were. Also the
> comments addressed the limitations or drawbacks of the VPS as well.

My main point was that the article was factual, but it doesn't provide
anything actionable for using a free proxy for free Usenet posting.

The article is fine if all you use is a web browser
o That's because free "proxy" web browsers abound

Furthermore, even for FINGERPRINTING, if all you use is a web browser, you
can get around a lot of the fingerprinting by using privacy based browser
settings, and by using privacy based browsers, and by using any one browser
for only one web site ,etc., all of which I _already_ do, Mike.

I have, oh, I don't count them, but at least a _score_ of browsers, Mike,
where each browser is set up specifically to do 1 thing & 1 thing only.

That's to limit the ability of "adversaries" from "fingerprinting" my
browser activities (which is one of the points of your helpful article).

However, your otherwise helpful article, in advising NOT to use VPN
services as a "glorified proxy" did NOT provide an alternative solution.

In summary, your alternative POV is great, but not actionable for Usenet,
unless or until we can find an alternative proxy solution for Usenet.

I'm all about actual actionable SOLUTIONS; hence this question for all:

o What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/nW_54TSBBEE>

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> o What free proxy works for free Usenet posting?

I don't know what you are doing that makes you feel that you need to
obscure your IP from your nntp provider.

For this particular usage of usenet for these groups we are
participating right now, I don't see that to be necessary at all.

if you are involved in some clandestine activity on usenet which could
get you into trouble with some entity then that is another matter.

--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:44:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

> like everything, some vpns are good and others are bad. some are in the
> middle. different vpn services prioritize different things. no vpn is
> best for everyone or in every situation. many people use more than one,
> depending on the situation.

To that end, the reader interesting in choosing among the various public
VPN service providers may be interested in this response to Mike Easter on
a related thread just moments ago...

From Mike Easter...
> I think you are referring to the website https://thatoneprivacysite.net/

Hi Mike,

THANK YOU for digging up that cite, as I had forgotten it, but the moment I
saw the green, red, yellow tables, I recognized it as the very helpful site
you had proposed when we last discussed how to _compare_ VPN services.
<https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-section/>

That site is very useful for experts to _pick_ among the various offerings!
o Let's always keep in mind that a "beginner" is different from an "expert".
o And that rolling your own is different from pointing to a public service.

This thread is clearly for beginners to _point_ to existing VPN services.

While I consider myself _still_ a beginner, I have been using VPN for a few
years now, on all the common consumer platforms, where my advice for a
beginner (which the OP very much appears to be) would be different than my
advice for an expert.

As you're aware, every day my wget scripts pull down off the net thousands
of free openvpn configuration files, each of which gives me an IP address
from any of hundreds of countries and thousands of locations (all of which
is geolocated for me in the scripts that you helped, long ago, us write
together on the Linux newsgroups, mostly from Marek Novotny, bless his
heart).

Let's keep in mind, for this thread, we're dealing with a beginner question.

For a beginner, I'd suggest a _specific_ protocol, & specifically openvpn.
o For an expert, they can _pick_ whatever protocol fits their needs best.

For a beginner, I'd suggest a _specific_ free public service.
o An expert can _pick_ a more reliable paid service to fit their needs.

My point of view is that, with our advice, a beginner can be up and running
on VPN in less time than it took to write this up - where - after they
"play around" a bit on VPN, they'll get their feet wet on the basics.

After that, they can spend the rest of their life choosing among the huge
number of variables nicely outlined in that reference you kindly unearthed:
o Detailed VPN Comparison Chart
<https://thatoneprivacysite.net/vpn-comparison-chart/>

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:52:12 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> I don't know what you are doing that makes you feel that you need to
> obscure your IP from your nntp provider.

Hi Mike Easter,

You got that completely wrong. :)
o I'm not sure why, as normally you can see the obvious.

Plus, I've said why I obfuscate the headers a thousand times.

It's not my ISP nor my NNTP provider that I care most about
o Although, this does have that effect

It's the real world that I care about:
o Some nntp servers don't even obfuscate the IP (e.g., netfront)
o Some never change their obfuscation algorithm (e.g., aioe)
o Some change the obfuscation only monthly (e.g., mixmin)
o Some never change the per-user obfuscation (e.g., eternal sept)
etc.

> For this particular usage of usenet for these groups we are
> participating right now, I don't see that to be necessary at all.

Hi Mike,

That's like saying you don't see any reason for freedom.
Or like saying you can't imagine why countries have borders.
Or like saying you can't see any reason for automotive door locks.
etc.

You can _say_ all that - but you're saying something meaningless.
o Worse, your claim reeks of utter and complete ignorance. :)

Perhaps the best way to respond to your comment is to reflect
on how Snowden responded to people like you about privacy:
o In one quote, Snowden just destroyed the biggest myth about privacy
<https://mic.com/articles/119602/in-one-quote-edward-snowden-summed-up-why-our-privacy-is-worth-fighting-for>

> if you are involved in some clandestine activity on usenet which could
> get you into trouble with some entity then that is another matter.

Hi Mike,

I can see around corners, where I completely comprehend
your veiled accusation, which is made out of your total ignorance.

I wish you wouldn't speak out of utter ignorance like that.
o Lots of people are just as ignorant as you appear to be.

The only response i will prove is this EXACT QUOTE from the above.

"At one point, Snowden brought up a common defense from people
who come down on the side of the government:
"I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got nothing to hide."

He then proceeded to obliterate that argument.

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because
you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't
care about free speech because you have nothing to say,"
he said.

In other words, the right to privacy, just like the right to
free speech, is fundamental for all Americans.

Snowden added that people who use the "I have nothing to hide"
line don't understand the basic foundation of human rights.
"Nobody needs to justify why they 'need' a right," he said.
"The burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe
upon the right."

Mike Easter,

Rest assured, while I'm only of average intelligence (if that),
I completly comprehended your veiled accusation.

Hence, the burden of proof is on you, Mike, to support your accusation,
with facts, as any adults should - and not on me to defend against your
accusation which I know to be made out of complete & total ignorance.

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> I don't know what you are doing that makes you feel that you need to
>> obscure your IP from your nntp provider.
>
> Hi Mike Easter,
>
> You got that completely wrong. :)
> o I'm not sure why, as normally you can see the obvious.
>
> Plus, I've said why I obfuscate the headers a thousand times.
>
> It's not my ISP nor my NNTP provider that I care most about
> o Although, this does have that effect
>
> It's the real world that I care about:
> o Some nntp servers don't even obfuscate the IP (e.g., netfront)

However, most do. Almost all, in fact.

> o Some never change their obfuscation algorithm (e.g., aioe)

However, most obfuscation is completely adequate.

> o Some change the obfuscation only monthly (e.g., mixmin)

Not many use mixmin.

> o Some never change the per-user obfuscation (e.g., eternal sept)
> etc.

That doesn't mean that you can decode it; nor does it mean that you know
or don't know whether they do or don't change what they do. It is one
thing to say "That is the same connectivity." and it is quite another to
say, "I know what that connectivity is."

>> For this particular usage of usenet for these groups we are
>> participating right now, I don't see that to be necessary at all.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> That's like saying you don't see any reason for freedom.

Not it is not. You are creating a strawman argument of the most blatant
kind.

> Or like saying you can't imagine why countries have borders.
> Or like saying you can't see any reason for automotive door locks.
> etc.

A whole line of strawmen.

> You can _say_ all that - but you're saying something meaningless.
> o Worse, your claim reeks of utter and complete ignorance. :)

Just because my pov is different from yours doesn't make mine ignorant.

> Perhaps the best way to respond to your comment is to reflect
> on how Snowden responded to people like you about privacy:
> o In one quote, Snowden just destroyed the biggest myth about privacy
> <https://mic.com/articles/119602/in-one-quote-edward-snowden-summed-up-why-our-privacy-is-worth-fighting-for>

I'm not against privacy concerns. My point is to balance and 'guide'
one's privacy concerns.

You haven't yet convinced me that you should be hiding your IP from your
nntp provider for these conversations we are having here. I don't
disagree with the avoidance of broadcasting your IP address to everyone
on usenet.

>> if you are involved in some clandestine activity on usenet which could
>> get you into trouble with some entity then that is another matter.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I can see around corners, where I completely comprehend
> your veiled accusation, which is made out of your total ignorance.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm contrasting different usages of
usenet with privacy concerns. If we are having a conversation like
this, I don't believe one needs to hide their IP from their IP provider;
but I agree that one should not use an nntp provider which exposes their
nntp connectivity IP if that IP does represent their *actual*
connectivity IP.

> I wish you wouldn't speak out of utter ignorance like that.
> o Lots of people are just as ignorant as you appear to be.

I wish you wouldn't drop down to ad hominem remarks when your pov is
challenged.

> The only response i will prove is this EXACT QUOTE from the above.
>
> "At one point, Snowden brought up a common defense from people
> who come down on the side of the government:
> "I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got nothing to hide."
>
> He then proceeded to obliterate that argument.
>
> "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because
> you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't
> care about free speech because you have nothing to say,"
> he said.
>
> In other words, the right to privacy, just like the right to
> free speech, is fundamental for all Americans.
>
> Snowden added that people who use the "I have nothing to hide"
> line don't understand the basic foundation of human rights.
> "Nobody needs to justify why they 'need' a right," he said.
> "The burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe
> upon the right."

The business of arguing for privacy in general does not provide a
worthwhile argument about my POV about any necessity to conceal your or
my connecting IP from my nntp provider for this particular conversation.

However, some other conversation in some other usenet group in some
other country might endanger the participant and they should figure out
how they are going to hide their IP from their nntp provider.

> Mike Easter,
>
> Rest assured, while I'm only of average intelligence (if that),
> I completly comprehended your veiled accusation.

I don't consider it an accusation if I mentioned that under some
circumstances one might want to conceal their IP from their nntp
provider, but that I don't think that most people would need to do that.
I simply said that I didn't believe that this conversation we are
having needs to have someone's IP concealed from their nntp provider --
unless that nntp provider were going to expose it to usenet at large.

> Hence, the burden of proof is on you, Mike, to support your accusation,
> with facts, as any adults should - and not on me to defend against your
> accusation which I know to be made out of complete & total ignorance.

You are mistaken.


--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:51:02 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

>> o Some nntp servers don't even obfuscate the IP (e.g., netfront)
> However, most do. Almost all, in fact.

Mike,
When you speak out of utter ignorance, it dismays me.

I know very well how the various nntp servers do and don't obfuscate NNTP
headers, particularly the NNPT posting host.

As an example, I've used Sunsite thousand upon thousands of times.

Here is a simple adult factual question for you, Mike:
o Does Sunsite obfuscate the NNTP posting host in the headers Mike?

>> o Some never change their obfuscation algorithm (e.g., aioe)
>
> However, most obfuscation is completely adequate.

Mike,
I really wish you'd stop proving your utter & complete ignorance.

I've used netfront thousands upon thousands of times, Mike.
o Is the Netfront obfuscation "completely adequate" Mike?

>> o Some change the obfuscation only monthly (e.g., mixmin)
>
> Not many use mixmin.

Mike,
While there's nothing wrong with the fact that Steve Cook's nntp server
isn't highly used, what about the Ray Banana's nntp server Mike?

Is the obfuscation from "Ray Banana's" NNTP server "completely adequate"?
o Is it Mike?

Or are you simply proving you own a total & utter ignorance of obfuscation?

For example, Mike, let me ask you _extremely_ basic algorithm questions:
Q1: How often does Paolo Amoroso _change_ his NNTP IP obfuscation?
Q2: How often does Wolfgang Weyland change his NNTP IP obfuscation?
Q3: How often does Steve Crook change his IP obfuscation algorithm?
Q4: How often does Alex de Joode change his IP obfuscation algorithm?
Q5: How often does Roman Racine change his IP obfuscation algorithm?
Q6: How often did Jesse Rehmer change his IP obfuscation algorithm?
Q7: How often does Steen Jensen change his IP obfuscation algorithm?
Q8: How often do Daniel & Monika Weber & Benjamin Gufler change theirs?

Each of those (and plenty more) run purposefully free public NNTP servers.

Do you know the answer to that trivially simple question Mike?
I do.

Everyone who knows _anything_ about IP obfuscations knows the answer, Mike.

I really wish you'd stop proving your utter & complete ignorance, Mike.
Seriously.

If you have something _intelligent_ to offer on obfuscation, then offer it.
o Your claims reek of your complete & total ignorance of IP obfuscation.

> That doesn't mean that you can decode it; nor does it mean that you know
> or don't know whether they do or don't change what they do. It is one
> thing to say "That is the same connectivity." and it is quite another to
> say, "I know what that connectivity is."

Mike,
I really wish you'd stop _proving_ your utter & complete ignorance.

All I have to do is ask you the same 3-word question I ask anyone who makes
repeated baseless claims out of their total and utter ignorance, Mike.

The only way you could know what you claim to know is to actually know the
specific algorithm that each of those nntp server admins use.

Do you know the algorithm used by even just one of those IP obfuscators?
o Name just one.

>> That's like saying you don't see any reason for freedom.
>
> Not it is not. You are creating a strawman argument of the most blatant
> kind.

Mike,
Just stop proving your utter & total ignorance on privacy.
Please.

I provided a well regarded cite that backs up EXACTLY what I said.
o What did you provide to back up your claim?

HINT: You provided absolutely nothing backing up your claim.

Notice Mike that I don't take your ignorance lightly simply because you are
like MANY ignorant people who think the way you do.
o Your statement reeks of ignorance, Mike.

Do you want _more_ cites from me proving your statement reeks of ignorance?

Here's a Guardian article explaining why your statement reeks of ignorance:
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/may/22/edward-snowden-rights-to-privacy-video>

Here's a Wikipedia page outlining YOUR blatant ignorant statement:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>

Here's what the Democratic Underground said about your ignorant statement:
<https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028166414>

Here's a Business Insider page outlining YOUR blatantly ignorant statement:
<https://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-privacy-argument-2016-9>

Here's a RightsAndDissent treatise explaining your ignorant statement:
<https://rightsanddissent.org/news/privacy-fountainhead-rights-ed-snowden-says-need-protect/>

Here's what the Wall Street Journal says about your igorant statement:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html>
etc

Your statement, Mike, is a common statement made out of utter ignorance.
o It's not just a difference of a point of view, Mike.

Your statement is THE classic PRIVACY statement that reeks of YOUR ignorance.

> A whole line of strawmen.

Mike,

You can minimalize your accusation Mike by claiming it's a POV.
o But that reeks of duplicity Mike.

Either back up your statement with facts - or apologize for making it.
o An adult has those two choices with everything that they say, Mike.

I happen to not only be an adult Mike - but I back up what I say.

I already easily provided a half dozen articles proving my facts.
o Facts are funny that way - they're easy to prove.

Now, where is the article you found Mike supporting YOUR point of view?
o Find just one.

HINT: The fact you likely can't find a SINGLE CITE that supports your POV
should tell you something Mike, especially as it's trivial for ANYONE with
any intelligence to find sites that clearly, openly, and obviously support
my POV, Mike.
o Facts are funny that way, Mike.

> Just because my pov is different from yours doesn't make mine ignorant.

Mike,
Stop bullshitting us, Mike.
o Just stop.

You just made a pseudomeaningful statement, which, I understand WHY
you made that pseudo-profund statement, but it reeks of your ignorance.
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-find-a-link-between-low-intelligence-and-acceptance-of-pseudo-profound-bulls-a6757731.html>

Please just STOP proving your ignorance, Mike.

What you're saying is akin to you saying that you see no reason for anyone
to want or need or desire freedom.

Your statement was CLASSIC for pseudomeaningful bullshit, Mike.

> I'm not against privacy concerns. My point is to balance and 'guide'
> one's privacy concerns.

Mike,
Please just stop spewing out pseudo-meaningful bullshit Mike.
o Either offer a workable solution or stop with the pseudo profound BS.

There is a certain type of person who is "receptive" to that bullshit Mike.
o On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
<http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf>

But I'm not receptive to pseudomeaningful bullshit, Mike.
O Clearly I speak facts.

Well cited facts. Well supported facts.
o Actual facts, Mike.

Not the pseudoprofound bullshit you are spewing right now, Mike.

> You haven't yet convinced me that you should be hiding your IP from your
> nntp provider for these conversations we are having here. I don't
> disagree with the avoidance of broadcasting your IP address to everyone
> on usenet.

Jesus Christ Mike.

Do you even _realize_ what you just said, Mike?
o I don't think you do, Mike.

For Christs' sake Mike, I don't have to _defend_ my right to privacy.
o Didn't you get _anything_ out of the cite I provided to you?

Nothing?
Really?

You're _that_ incomprehensive of what _all_ those cites said, Mike?
o Let me _summarize_ what _all_ those cites said, Mike:

If you want to attack my right to privacy, then you, Mike, have the burden
to prove that I have no right to privacy, Mike.

For you to claim that I need to _defend_ my right to privacy is EXACTLY
what _all_ those articles are claiming is the classic argument of
ignorance.

All you're doing Mike, is _proving_ that you're ignorant of even the most
basic of the most basic of the most basic of the tenets of the right to
privacy.

For heaven's sake Mike, stop proving you are utterly & completely ignorant.
Note: That is _not_ an ad hominem attack; it's imply pointing out a fact.

I back up that fact with the articles I've sited.
o Now it's your turn, Mike, to back up your claims, Mike.

Find a cite, Mike, that backs up _your_ claims, Mike (or stop making them).
o Find just one.

> I'm not accusing you of anything.

Mike,

If you are an adult, you'll admit to what you wrote, or, you'll apologize.
o But to deny what you wrote reeks of duplicity.

> I'm contrasting different usages of
> usenet with privacy concerns.

Mike,
Go back and read your own words, Mike.
Go ahead. Read them. I'll wait.

Then, after you read your own words, as an adult, you have 2 choices:
1. Apologize, or,
2. Back them up with facts.

No more pseudo-meaningfull bullshit Mike.
1. Apologize, or,
2. Back them up with facts.

It's what I would do (and did).

> If we are having a conversation like
> this, I don't believe one needs to hide their IP from their IP provider;
> but I agree that one should not use an nntp provider which exposes their
> nntp connectivity IP if that IP does represent their *actual*
> connectivity IP.

Mike,
As I've said, I have already backed up my point that I have a right to
privacy and, please take note, I _backed_ up that fact with well-cited
references.

My simple test of ignorance is three words Mike.
o Name just one.

Yup. That's the _simplest_ test there is for ignorance spewed by anyone.

If your claim has any merit, you should be able to find a well-regarded
cite that backs up your claim, Mike.

Please note Mike, I am an adult, and I make an erudite argument.
o Hence, it's _easy_ to back up my claim with well-cited references.

I ask the same of you Mike
o To be an adult, and,
O Therefore, to back up your claim with a valid reference.

3 words is the simplest test I know for utter & complete ignorance, Mike.
o Name just one.

Hence, I ask you to back up your claim with a cite that agrees with you:
o Name just one.

>
>> I wish you wouldn't speak out of utter ignorance like that.
>> o Lots of people are just as ignorant as you appear to be.
>
> I wish you wouldn't drop down to ad hominem remarks when your pov is
> challenged.

Mike,

I teach in local schools where we're taught how to handle cowardly bullies.
o I mirror your inference Mike
o So as to funnel you into acting like an adult, Mike.

I stated facts and only facts Mike.
o I proved, with cites, that your statement is common with ignorant people.

That's _not_ an ad hominem attack Mike.
o That's a fact Mike - and I proved it was a fact, Mike.

You made the _classic_ statement that many ignorant people make Mike.
o Classic.

I pointed out your statement is a classic ignorant statement Mike,
o That's a simple fact Mike.

It's so _classic_ it's not even hard to find cites backing me up, Mike.

As an adult, you really only have two choices Mike:
o Either Apologize (which any adult would do, Mike), or...
o Back up your statements, Mike (with facts ... like I do, Mike).

Your choice:
o Apologize like any adult would, or...
o Back up your statements with fact (also like any adult would).

That's NOT an ad hominem attack Mike.
o It's simply a fact.

If you have _any_ factual basis, Mike, for your statement...
o Then you _should_ be able to find a cite that backs up your claim.

I'm ok with _reading_ and _comprehending_ your cite, Mike:
o Name just one.

> The business of arguing for privacy in general does not provide a
> worthwhile argument about my POV about any necessity to conceal your or
> my connecting IP from my nntp provider for this particular conversation.

Mike,

Either back up your statements, or apologize for making them.
o As an adult, those are your only two choices.

I backed up _all_ my statements with well-cited references Mike.

Where's _your_ reference that backs up your point of view Mike?
o Name just one.

> However, some other conversation in some other usenet group in some
> other country might endanger the participant and they should figure out
> how they are going to hide their IP from their nntp provider.

Mike,

I must repeat that I'm of average intelligence (if that); hence I can
comprehend all your pseudo-meaningful bullshit, Mike.

I can even comprehend your lightly veiled accusations, Mike.

Either back up your statements, or apologize for making them.
o If you are an adult, I posit that those are your only two choices.

> I don't consider it an accusation if I mentioned that under some
> circumstances one might want to conceal their IP from their nntp
> provider, but that I don't think that most people would need to do that.
> I simply said that I didn't believe that this conversation we are
> having needs to have someone's IP concealed from their nntp provider --
> unless that nntp provider were going to expose it to usenet at large.

Either back up your statements, or apologize for making them.
o If you are an adult, I posit that those are your only two choices.

I provided ctes that +_clearly_ and obviously and repeatedly back up my
claim that nobody needs to defend their right to privacy when someone tells
them they don't feel they "need" that right for privacy under ANY
circumstances.

The simplest test I can think of for ignorant bullshit is just 3 words:
o Name just one.

If you have sites that claim otherwise, then simply cite them:
o Name just one.

>> Hence, the burden of proof is on you, Mike, to support your accusation,
>> with facts, as any adults should - and not on me to defend against your
>> accusation which I know to be made out of complete & total ignorance.
>
> You are mistaken.

Mike,
If our points of view are reasonable, then we should be able to find
well-regarded cites that back up our points of view.

Clearly I provided well regarded cites that back up my point of view.
o Now it's your turn Mike - to back up your point of view

Remember, Mike, YOU are the one making the accusations.
o You are the one saying what rights to privacy that I have, Mike.

Not me.
o You.

Hence, the burden of proof is on you, Mike.
o I clearly backed up my claim, with facts, that the burden is on you.

I posit that you are simply proving your utter & complete ignorance
o By constantly claiming that which you can't even back up in the least.

That's NOT an ad hominem attack, Mike.
o It's merely a basic factual definition of ignorance.

The simplest test I can think of for ignorance is just these 3 words, Mike:
o Name just one.

Rest assured Mike, I posit I am of at least average intelligence (if that);
hence _any_ cite you find, I will _comprehend_ what that site says, Mike.

This is the _classic_ proof of ignorance, Mike:

Find any well-regarded cite that backs up your point of view, Mike:
o Name just one.

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> o Some nntp servers don't even obfuscate the IP (e.g., netfront)
>> However, most do. Almost all, in fact.
>
> Mike,
> When you speak out of utter ignorance, it dismays me.

There you go again.

> I know very well how the various nntp servers do and don't obfuscate NNTP
> headers, particularly the NNPT posting host.
>
> As an example, I've used Sunsite thousand upon thousands of times.
>
> Here is a simple adult factual question for you, Mike:
> o Does Sunsite obfuscate the NNTP posting host in the headers Mike?

No. Nor does the newer name dotsrc. sunsite.dk; dotsrc.org

For some posters, that disclosure of nntp serves as an identification to
prevent being forged. They trade the disclosure of their connecting IP
for the value it brings to the forgery issue.

>>> o Some never change their obfuscation algorithm (e.g., aioe)
>>
>> However, most obfuscation is completely adequate.
>
> Mike,
> I really wish you'd stop proving your utter & complete ignorance.
>
> I've used netfront thousands upon thousands of times, Mike.
> o Is the Netfront obfuscation "completely adequate" Mike?

Reading more of your drivel on this issue is pointless.

--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Q2: How often does Wolfgang Weyland change his NNTP IP obfuscation?
> Q3: How often does Steve Crook change his IP obfuscation algorithm?

Steve Crook doesn't believe Wolfgang/Ray's encoded NPH is crackable by
users, according to a message he posted in news.software.readers in 2011.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/news.software.readers/v8BxTgW74v4/EJeEW50VHvEJ


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=155045086200

SC: "As it's almost certainly using a one-way hash, it's probably
safe to say it's impossible to obtain the actual address from the hash
output."

--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:20:42 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> Reading more of your drivel on this issue is pointless.

Hi Mike Easter,

Act like an adult, Mike.

You clearly went over the edge on making your baseless claims.
o I proved your claims are that of ignorant people using multiple cites

You provided absolutely zero facts to back up your baseless claims.
o I provided something like a half dozen cites to back up mine.

Your baseless ignorant claims are well-known _classic_ claims, Mike.
o It took ten seconds to prove your claims completely baseless, Mike.

An adult would do one of two things, Mike:
o You'd admit you made ignorant baseless claims (which is a fact);
o Or, you'd back up your ignorant baseless claims with an actual fact.

Your choice, Mike.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:49:13 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> arlen holder wrote:
>> Q2: How often does Wolfgang Weyland change his NNTP IP obfuscation?
>> Q3: How often does Steve Crook change his IP obfuscation algorithm?
>
> Steve Crook doesn't believe Wolfgang/Ray's encoded NPH is crackable by
> users, according to a message he posted in news.software.readers in 2011.

Hi Mike Easter,

This isn't my first rodeo with people making baseless claims, Mike.

I've had _many_ conversations with Steve Crook in personal email
about how he does his hashes, where I _know_ how often Steve
changes his algorithms because he changed them, he told me, based on input
I provided to him (and which he agreed with, but then had to modify as the
spammers were killling him).

I also know how often Ray Banana changes his algorithms, Mike.
o You didn't answer that question, Mike.

The question for you was very simple Mike.
o I'll repeat the question for you Mike.

How often do each of all the nntp server admins _change_ their algorithms?

Mike,

All I ask is that you _act_ like an adult would act. Please.
o Clearly _all_ your claims were made out of complete ignorance.

It was trivial to prove your claims were out of ignorance, Mike.
o That's because your claims are well known and _classic_ claims.

It took me all of 10 seconds to find cites that disproved your claims, Mike.

Why don't we cut our losses, Mike, since you're acting like children act.
o Either man up and admit you made completely baseless claims,
o Or back up your baseless claims with an actual fact.

An adult, Mike, would choose one of those two options above.

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> How often do each of all the nntp server admins_change_ their algorithms?

It doesn't matter whether they change their encryption or not. The
schema they use is satisfactory to them and to their users.

The fact that you think something else is not important to them. Or me.

If you 'fear' for some reason or other that 'someone' or some thing will
discover your connecting IP from an nntp message you post, then you
should do whatever you must, such as VPN to mitigate that fear.

I'm saying that MOST conversations like this one in this group do not
need to have the connecting or provider IP hidden from the nntp admin,
who can certainly decrypt the NPH or examine his logs.

If I were doing something in which I might have an adversary, such as
downloading copyrighted material, I would not want my adversary to be
able to discover my connecting IP very easily, so I would have to do
something about that such as VPN and/or Tor.

However, if I am dl/ing such as open source linux .iso/s, then it
doesn't matter to me if the torrent pool members have access to my
connecting IP.

Maybe if you are rude or offensive to those on usenet with whom you have
conversations you might acquire more adversaries than someone who isn't.


--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 01:34:52 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> It doesn't matter whether they change their encryption or not. The
> schema they use is satisfactory to them and to their users.

Mike,
Stop making veiled arguments that nobody has a right to privacy.
o Just stop it.

It makes you sound ignorant to claim nobody has a right to privacy.

> The fact that you think something else is not important to them. Or me.

Mike,
1. I posted a purposefully helpful quickie on getting up to speed on VPN.
2. You launced into your classic ignorant keyword troll based on "VPN".

This isn't my first rodeo with you, Mike.
o Every single time the word "VPN" is mentioned, you launch the same spiel.

You're like a cat pouncing on a laser beam.
o All you see is that the laser beam is MOVING!!!!!!!

Then you POUNCE on it!
o You do this EVERY time the word "VPN" is mentioned in ANY thread, Mike.

It doesn't matter WHAT the question is about VPN, MIke.
o Like the cat and the laser beam, you POUNCE on it with the same response.

I could have asked how to "spell" VPN, for Christs' sake Mike.
o And you'd _still_ pounce on it with the same innate response as always

CITE: <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innate-acquired/>
Titled: The difference between innate and acquired characteristics

All your responses to the keyword "VPN" are _always_ the same Mike.
o And they're wrong.

I don't have to prove my right to privacy, Mike.
o The burden is on you to prove I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

> If you 'fear' for some reason or other that 'someone' or some thing will
> discover your connecting IP from an nntp message you post, then you
> should do whatever you must, such as VPN to mitigate that fear.

I don't have to prove my right to privacy, Mike.
o The burden is on you to prove I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

Remember, YOU are the troll here, Mike - not me.
o I simply posted a purposefully helpful way for beginners

> I'm saying that MOST conversations like this one in this group do not
> need to have the connecting or provider IP hidden from the nntp admin,
> who can certainly decrypt the NPH or examine his logs.

I don't have to prove my right to privacy, Mike.
o The burden is on you to prove I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

> If I were doing something in which I might have an adversary, such as
> downloading copyrighted material, I would not want my adversary to be
> able to discover my connecting IP very easily, so I would have to do
> something about that such as VPN and/or Tor.

I don't have to prove my right to privacy, Mike.
o The burden is on you to prove I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

> However, if I am dl/ing such as open source linux .iso/s, then it
> doesn't matter to me if the torrent pool members have access to my
> connecting IP.

I don't have to prove my right to privacy, Mike.
o The burden is on you to prove I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

> Maybe if you are rude or offensive to those on usenet with whom you have
> conversations you might acquire more adversaries than someone who isn't.

Mike,

Stop it with your completely baseless ignorant claims, Mike.
o Just stop.

LOOK at my responses to you, Mike.
o LOOK!

When you response helpfully, I respond very very very politely.

When you respond with complete and total ignorant bullshit,
o I tell you it's complete and total ignorant bullshit

When you make veiled ignorant threats...
o I tell you that I don't appreciate your ignorant veiled threats

When you make utterly baseless ignorant claims about proxies
o I ask you to NAME JUST ONE

The fact that you can't name just one is not an ad hominem attack.
o It's a fact.

The fact is that you responded as you ALWAYS respond to the VPN keyword.
THe fact is you're a keyword troll, Mike, at least for the keyword VPN.
The fact is your advice is to use a proxy, Mike, instead of a "glorified proxy".

If your claim has _any_ merit, Mike, you'd _find_ a proxy.
o And yet ... you can't.

All I'm pointing out is the FACTs Mike.
o Your claims are all complete and total ignorant bullshit, Mike.

You can't back up a _single_ one of your claims, Mike.
o And I backed up every one of mine, Mike.

What you don't like is that you made ignorant statements
o That I proved were ignorant.

Thats! What you don't like, Mike.

I'm a man of action Mike.
o Give me a free proxy to use with the free Usenet servers, Mike.

I'll THANK you and I'll USE that proxy.

But don't tell me to use a proxy that simply does not appear to exist.
o That! Mike.

That! Would be you spewing complete & total ignorant bullshit.

HINT: I am completely against ignorant & total bullshit.
DOUBLEHINT: I'm all for a free proxy that works with Usenet!

To that end, interested users may visit_this_ thread:

o What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/nW_54TSBBEE>

Is there a free proxy that works with free Usenet servers, or not?
o If yes, I'll test it out and report back to increase our tribal knowledge.
o IF no, then the advice to use a free proxy is complete ignorant bullshit.

[janh...@newsguy.com]

Thanks from a beginner. I found the information very useful = hal

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:31:04 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on iOS/Android

Please test this new privacy solution for the team to let us know
with purposefully helpful advice, whether you think this is useful
to the "general user".
o I will run tests on iOS & Android (but this product is new to me)
o Note that this product appears to be aimed at the GENERAL USER

Experts like Mike Easter are asked to provide useful helpful advice for
basic users, which this mobile-device system VPN is apparently aimed for.

The installation appears to be designed to be trivially simple
(compared to the normal setup of VPN which takes more thinking).

As always. rest assured of the following two assumed logical implications:
o VPN can be set up in a minute but could take a lifetime to choose the best.
o A best VPN doesn't exist - you choose the best for YOUR threat model

Having said the caveats to ward off the classic VPN keyword trolling,
here is the software & references that I read this morning to learn more.

CloudFlare: Introducing Warp: Fixing Mobile Internet Performance and Security
o *A VPN for People Who Don't Know What V.P.N. Stands For*
o The basic version of Warp is included as an option with the 1.1.1.1 App for free.
o 1. We don't write user-identifiable log data to disk;
o 2. We will never sell your browsing data or use it in any way to target you with advertising data;
o 3. Don't need to provide any personal information; not your name, phone number, or email address; in order to use the 1.1.1.1 App with Warp; and
o 4. We will regularly hire outside auditors to ensure we're living up to these promises.
o We understand freemium and we are excited to extend our experience with it into the consumer space.
<https://blog.cloudflare.com/1111-warp-better-vpn/>

Software Download:
*iOS*:
o 1.1.1.1: Faster Internet, Faster, more private Internet, by Cloudflare
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1-1-1-1-faster-internet/id1423538627?mt=8>

*Android*:
o 1.1.1.1: Faster & Safer Internet, by Cloudflare, Inc
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cloudflare.onedotonedotonedotone>

News Stories:

*Verge*: Cloudflare is adding a free VPN to its 1.1.1.1 app
o More speed and security
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/1/18290615/cloudflare-1-1-1-1-vpn-dns-resolver-security-privacy>

*9to5Mac:* Cloudflare announces Warp: a new free VPN service for iOS
o Following their tradition of introducing new services on April 1st,
Cloudflare is today announcing Warp: a new mobile VPN that promises to
protect the users¡¦ internet traffic while improving speed at the same time.
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/01/cloudflare-warp-free-vpn-service-ios/>

*EnGadget*: Cloudflare's privacy-focused DNS app adds a free VPN
o Warp is a VPN for your mobile device.
<https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/01/cloudflares-privacy-focused-dns-app-adds-a-free-vpn/>

*Wired*: CLOUDFLARE SAYS ITS NEW VPN SERVICE WON¡¦T SLOW YOU DOWN
o VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORKS (VPNs) can help protect your internet traffic
from prying eyes.
<https://www.wired.com/story/cloudflare-says-new-vpn-service-wont-slow-you-down/>

*TomsHardware*: Cloudflare Announces Free VPN Service for Faster, More Private Internet
o Cloudflare today announced the launch of the free Warp VPN service that
it claimed will not only keep your data private, but also make your
internet connections faster.
<https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cloud-warp-free-vpn-service,38966.html>

*AppleInsider*: Cloudflare debuts free 'Warp' VPN for iPhone and iPad
o Content delivery network provider Cloudflare plans to make its 1.1.1.1
free DNS service more useful to iPhone and iPad users, with the "Warp"
addition to the mobile app providing users with a free VPN that is claimed
to make going online faster, reliable, and more secure.
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/01/cloudflare-debuts-free-warp-vpn-for-iphone-and-ipad>

*TechSpot*: Cloudflare's new 'Warp' VPN promises faster, more private mobile browsing
o There's plenty of solid virtual private networks (VPN) out there for
people who value their privacy, but the best ones usually aren't free. That
could change now, though - Cloudflare has unveiled "Warp," its own
proprietary VPN service.
<https://www.techspot.com/news/79461-cloudflare-new-warp-vpn-promises-faster-more-private.html>

o *TechRadar*: Cloudflare launches new VPN with emphasis on speed
o The company's VPN service will use Google's QUIC protocol for faster
speeds and less lag
<https://www.techradar.com/news/cloudflare-launches-new-vpn-with-emphasis-on-speed>

*GHacks*: Cloudflare announces Warp VPN service
o Cloudflare revealed the company's first VPN product today called Warp
which it plans to launch as part of the company's 1.1.1.1 application soon.
<https://www.ghacks.net/2019/04/01/cloudflare-announces-warp-vpn-service/>

As always, please add PURPOSEFULLY HELPFUL advice, particularly because
this VPN solution appears to be aimed at the clueless general user, who
needs PURPOSEFULLY HELPFUL useful advice.

[John McWilliams]

[Geek’s Advice]

I would strongly recommend to us pia VPN, I would rate this product ultimate winner for many experts it is the top application as well https://geeksadvice.com/private-internet-access-review/

[dan]

There ain't no such thing.