OMG. It's a LOT of work to set up Firefox for privacy on WinXP!

Paul in Houston TX replied:

I cannot help with finding a proxy.
Sorry. You are on your own on that.

You have to realize I've heard that "proxy is the solution" so many times
over the years, when I can never find anyone who can say "this particular
proxy settings are the solution".

What I'm seeking is merely actionable suggestions.
Not theoretical ones.

R.Wieser replied:

"Proxy" is, as you remarked, an over-broad term. And I even dare to state
that its not even correct (its not at all aimed at privacy).

I must agree with you, in general, that saying the solution to privacy is
"proxy" is wrong in so very many ways, not the least of which is that it's
not an actionable answer.

It's like saying the solution to death is not dying.

Without an actionable set of Firefox proxy settings, it's veritably
meaningless to say the solution to privacy is proxy.

Even when I google for more actionable information, what proxy turns out to
be, in most cases, (at least if it's encrypted) is simply VPN for a single
port and protocol.

And if the proxy isn't encrypted, all it turns out to be is a URL
redirector.

That's why I don't think saying "proxy" is a solution helps anyone, but I
don't know enough about the right proxy settings to prove that is the case
or to prove that is not the case.

On 24/01/2017 23:43, Ann Dunham wrote:

It's complex as can be, so to make it simpler, I ask that we each post a
SINGLE actionable suggestion in each post (not thousands of suggestions in
one post), so that anyone following this in the future can take it one post
(suggestion) at a time.
Frankly, you shouldn't be using XP if it is a lot of work!!!!!!!!! It is
time to get back to your old hobby of knitting and cooking.



--
With over 400 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:42:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID:
Ann Dunham wrote:




R.Wieser replied:

"Proxy" is, as you remarked, an over-broad term. And I even dare to state
that its not even correct (its not at all aimed at privacy).

I must agree with you, in general, that saying the solution to privacy is
"proxy" is wrong in so very many ways, not the least of which is that it's
not an actionable answer.

It's like saying the solution to death is not dying.

Without an actionable set of Firefox proxy settings, it's veritably
meaningless to say the solution to privacy is proxy.

Even when I google for more actionable information, what proxy turns out to
be, in most cases, (at least if it's encrypted) is simply VPN for a single
port and protocol.

And if the proxy isn't encrypted, all it turns out to be is a URL
redirector.

That's why I don't think saying "proxy" is a solution helps anyone, but I
don't know enough about the right proxy settings to prove that is the case
or to prove that is not the case.



There are several different types of proxies.

Corporate Proxy, Web Proxy, Local Proxy Server, etc.
Each has their own place.

The one you would be looking for is called a
Local Proxy Server which resides on Your computer.

Basically, it will allow you to either whitelist or blacklist
any website. The problem with it is, very few of them
are great pieces of software. They have their flaws.
Most of them are just a bit annoying. They are about
as hard to set up as a firewall. Thats the software kind.

The Corporate Proxy is usually the hardware type which
is programed to block certain websites like facebook, so
their employees won't spend their workday on social sites.

A Web Proxy usually caches (saves) web pages and
images or media so that it keeps internet traffic down
to a minimal and has benefits of loading faster and
for when a website is down, it will still load up in
the browser. This is usually done on a Linux Server.
Businesses and corporations normally use these.

There are several more I haven't listed.

In any case,
there are several browser plugins. The one for Firefox
is: "Easy Whitelist". It basically does the same thing
as a Local Proxy Server, with some minor differences.

Hope that helps!

IQN,

There are several different types of proxies.

Corporate Proxy, Web Proxy, Local Proxy Server, etc.
Each has their own place.

Yes, you are making *some* distinction there. However, a "Corporate Proxy"
can be a "Local Web Proxy" as well as being something else altogether, like
a remote FTP proxy. In short, as distinctions those prefixes aren't worth
much (too vague) ...

I think you can even replace the term "proxy" with "car", "store" and
others, and have the same kind of rather (non)meaningfull word combinations.
:-\ :-)

The word "proxy" is a non-specific _container_ word, just like "computer",
"car" or "store" is: The word itself says very little, its what you *do*
with it thats important.

The dictionary I googled states it as follows: "proxy", something/one which
acts on behalf on something/someone else. Notice that it doesn't mention
*what* its doing for that something/one else. :-)


As an example, thake what you think a "Corporate Proxy" is and does: Its
some hardware, and its used to block access to certain websites.

A friend of mine has young kids, and his "Domestic Proxy" (I made that
combination up :-) ) does the very same: its on a seperate compute, and it
blocks his kids from accessing certain (as of yet) undesirable websites*.

In short: Its all you say a "coorporate proxy" is, but in a non-coorporate
location ...

*It also does virus and malware scanning/removal, web content caching, as
well as being a file and print server among other things.


In short, IMHO you're probably much better off describing what actions
should be taken to safeguard the OPs privacy (in regard to webbrowsing) and
maybe which kind of software would be able to do that.

As for blocking websites in the OPs circumstances, wouldn't the "hosts" file
not be usable for that ? :-p

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
IQN schreef in berichtnieuws
...
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:42:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID:
Ann Dunham wrote:




R.Wieser replied:

"Proxy" is, as you remarked, an over-broad term. And I even dare to
state
that its not even correct (its not at all aimed at privacy).

I must agree with you, in general, that saying the solution to privacy
is
"proxy" is wrong in so very many ways, not the least of which is that
it's
not an actionable answer.

It's like saying the solution to death is not dying.

Without an actionable set of Firefox proxy settings, it's veritably
meaningless to say the solution to privacy is proxy.

Even when I google for more actionable information, what proxy turns out
to
be, in most cases, (at least if it's encrypted) is simply VPN for a
single
port and protocol.

And if the proxy isn't encrypted, all it turns out to be is a URL
redirector.

That's why I don't think saying "proxy" is a solution helps anyone, but
I
don't know enough about the right proxy settings to prove that is the
case
or to prove that is not the case.



There are several different types of proxies.

Corporate Proxy, Web Proxy, Local Proxy Server, etc.
Each has their own place.

The one you would be looking for is called a
Local Proxy Server which resides on Your computer.

Basically, it will allow you to either whitelist or blacklist
any website. The problem with it is, very few of them
are great pieces of software. They have their flaws.
Most of them are just a bit annoying. They are about
as hard to set up as a firewall. Thats the software kind.

The Corporate Proxy is usually the hardware type which
is programed to block certain websites like facebook, so
their employees won't spend their workday on social sites.

A Web Proxy usually caches (saves) web pages and
images or media so that it keeps internet traffic down
to a minimal and has benefits of loading faster and
for when a website is down, it will still load up in
the browser. This is usually done on a Linux Server.
Businesses and corporations normally use these.

There are several more I haven't listed.

In any case,
there are several browser plugins. The one for Firefox
is: "Easy Whitelist". It basically does the same thing
as a Local Proxy Server, with some minor differences.

Hope that helps!

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:42:19 +0000 (UTC), Ann Dunham
wrote:

Shadow replied:

A proxy is a remote computer you trust as much as your own.
People in repressive regimes often use proxies to access sites blocked
by their governments.

These two statements make complete theoretical sense.
I don't disagree with either statement.


So the client would request a site from the proxy using an
encrypted connection, which would connect, download the content and
pass it on to the client.

The only part I "might" ask about clarification is whether or not
encryption is required for proxy, but, with or without encryption, I get
the point that a proxy theoretically hides your activity by putting a man
in the middle.

However, if encryption is involved, how does a proxy differ from VPN, which
does the same thing?

As you can probably guess, the great majority are run by
governments and used for blackmail and /or worse.
Tip: don't use a proxy.

Would you give the same tip not to use a VPN?


The only situation they are useful is for downloading stuff
not available in your country. A lot of Youtube videos are blocked in
Brazil (This video is not available in your country), so I use a proxy
in Europe or the US to see the content. It brings down the cultural
"walls" repressive governments try to impose on other nations.

Couldn't you accomplish the same country-morphing ability with a VPN?

How does a proxy differ from a VPN?

Using a proxy does not call the same amount of attention
(after all, it's just an encrypted connection to a remote site, more
or less the default now) as a VPN.
Trust me, I live in a dictatorship. If you use a VPN you WILL
be singled out. And VPNs are easy to spot at an ISP level.

https://www.quora.com/Can-my-ISP-ide...ng-function-on

Proxies are often run by hobbyists, and change IP addresses
often. No way some banana regime can keep tabs on all of them.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 05:10:13 +0000, Good Guy
wrote:

On 24/01/2017 23:43, Ann Dunham wrote:

It's complex as can be, so to make it simpler, I ask that we each post a
SINGLE actionable suggestion in each post (not thousands of suggestions in
one post), so that anyone following this in the future can take it one post
(suggestion) at a time.
Frankly, you shouldn't be using XP if it is a lot of work!!!!!!!!!

Win 7 and 10 are MUCH more work. Trying to close all those
datamining and profiling backdoors as fast as they make new ones is
VERY time consuming.
At least XP is stable now, and relatively immune to hacks.

It is time to get back to your old hobby of knitting and cooking.

My Uncle was a great cook, and learning to knit was mandatory
where I went to school. Are you suggesting she become a man ?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 06:22:18 +0000 (UTC), IQN
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:42:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID:
Ann Dunham wrote:




R.Wieser replied:

"Proxy" is, as you remarked, an over-broad term. And I even dare to state
that its not even correct (its not at all aimed at privacy).

I must agree with you, in general, that saying the solution to privacy is
"proxy" is wrong in so very many ways, not the least of which is that it's
not an actionable answer.

It's like saying the solution to death is not dying.

Without an actionable set of Firefox proxy settings, it's veritably
meaningless to say the solution to privacy is proxy.

Even when I google for more actionable information, what proxy turns out to
be, in most cases, (at least if it's encrypted) is simply VPN for a single
port and protocol.

And if the proxy isn't encrypted, all it turns out to be is a URL
redirector.

That's why I don't think saying "proxy" is a solution helps anyone, but I
don't know enough about the right proxy settings to prove that is the case
or to prove that is not the case.



There are several different types of proxies.

Corporate Proxy, Web Proxy, Local Proxy Server, etc.
Each has their own place.

The one you would be looking for is called a
Local Proxy Server which resides on Your computer.

Basically, it will allow you to either whitelist or blacklist
any website. The problem with it is, very few of them
are great pieces of software. They have their flaws.
Most of them are just a bit annoying. They are about
as hard to set up as a firewall. Thats the software kind.

The Corporate Proxy is usually the hardware type which
is programed to block certain websites like facebook, so
their employees won't spend their workday on social sites.

A Web Proxy usually caches (saves) web pages and
images or media so that it keeps internet traffic down
to a minimal and has benefits of loading faster and
for when a website is down, it will still load up in
the browser. This is usually done on a Linux Server.
Businesses and corporations normally use these.

There are several more I haven't listed.

In any case,
there are several browser plugins. The one for Firefox
is: "Easy Whitelist". It basically does the same thing
as a Local Proxy Server, with some minor differences.

Hope that helps!


See subject line. I think she was talking about privacy. IOW,
anonymous proxies, not business oriented ones that do the opposite,
and LOG your "indiscretions".
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 09:08:45 +0100
Message-ID:
"R.Wieser" wrote:




IQN,

There are several different types of proxies.

Corporate Proxy, Web Proxy, Local Proxy Server, etc.
Each has their own place.

Yes, you are making *some* distinction there. However, a "Corporate Proxy"
can be a "Local Web Proxy" as well as being something else altogether, like
a remote FTP proxy. In short, as distinctions those prefixes aren't worth
much (too vague) ...

I think you can even replace the term "proxy" with "car", "store" and
others, and have the same kind of rather (non)meaningfull word combinations.
:-\ :-)

The word "proxy" is a non-specific _container_ word, just like "computer",
"car" or "store" is: The word itself says very little, its what you *do*
with it thats important.

The dictionary I googled states it as follows: "proxy", something/one which
acts on behalf on something/someone else. Notice that it doesn't mention
*what* its doing for that something/one else. :-)


As an example, thake what you think a "Corporate Proxy" is and does: Its
some hardware, and its used to block access to certain websites.

A friend of mine has young kids, and his "Domestic Proxy" (I made that
combination up :-) ) does the very same: its on a seperate compute, and it
blocks his kids from accessing certain (as of yet) undesirable websites*.

In short: Its all you say a "coorporate proxy" is, but in a non-coorporate
location ...

*It also does virus and malware scanning/removal, web content caching, as
well as being a file and print server among other things.


In short, IMHO you're probably much better off describing what actions
should be taken to safeguard the OPs privacy (in regard to webbrowsing) and
maybe which kind of software would be able to do that.

As for blocking websites in the OPs circumstances, wouldn't the "hosts" file
not be usable for that ? :-p

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



Answer to the last question is no. The hosts file will indeed block
websites, but not IP numbers. It's useless in my opinion, because
websites change their addresses and IP numbers routinely. Take
google for example, which has hundreds of addresses.

Speaking of google, Ann Dunham, does not know or care about
privacy or he/she would have had blocked them 100 ways to sunday.

The short of it, there is no such thing as 100% "privacy" on the
internet. Are you naive enough to think an "Internet Proxy" will
protect your "privacy"? Think again.

All you can do is minimize your footprint by blocking websites.
Or rather, whitelisting sites you visit and denying everything else,
is what I like to do. It's all about taming your internet browser to
behave. Because left to itself, it will be like a child alone in a
candy store.

The OP didn't understand what a "proxy" is and I simply gave
a few instances in which the are used. I was simply following
the subject matter of his/her reply. Noticed I used "his\her"?
Why is that?

Gotta go...

Shadow wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:44:20 +0000 (UTC), Ann Dunham
wrote:

Ann Dunham replied:

So that leaves us with fleshing out:
1. Firewall
5. Router passwords

I really know almost nothing about firewalls, so I will let others flesh
this one out.

I will ask a few questions though, since WinXP doesn't come with a firewall
(and since routers always come with a firewall).

1. The first question is why we'd need a software firewall if the router
has a hardware firewall.

Software firewalls filter by which program makes the request.
Hardware firewalls are just a dumb "no you can't have access to this
PC, UNLESS a trojan has asked for that access"

2. The second question will be WHICH free software firewall is the best one
for Windows XP.

Probably Kerio 2.1.5

http://www.emule-security.org/download.php?list.2


kerio-pf-2.1.5-en-win.exe
MD5: 0DA51E1414EB4622860795278AC756BE
SHA-1: 7F136BC317901E32DEDEA1EBA00AF5336B50B43C
(I checked against one I have archived for 12 years on a CD)

It's very simple to use, it's annoying at first, but after a
week or so it settles down.
You might need a couple of registry tweaks , it was designed
back when RAM was measured in MB.
Once it's properly set up, it will stop even malware. Most
malware does not even search for it as it's not used much anymore.
They tend to search for (and deactivate) ZoneAlarm, Privatefirewall,
Online Armor and other more popular firewalls.
It caught the only malware to ever infect my machine when it
tried to phone home for the payload. (the only malware in 20 years)

The Windows Firewall is hopeless, and SHOULD BE DISABLED.

Ditto, but KPF has blue screen problems with updated Windows XP Pro SP3
for some users like me. See
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25...-replace-Kerio and
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23283834- for the old discussions. For
those affected, we switched to Outpost Firewall 2009 v6.5.1 which was
nice too.

I don't use Windows XP Pro SP3 on my real machines anymore though since
I use PC Tools Firewall Plus v7 which is OK (likes to crash once in a
while and not that good compared to the other two).


I don't know software firewalls, but I know how to google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=best...tware+firewall

Trouble with Google results are that they are $$$$$
orientated. They rarely point to true freeware.
[]'s

The problem, as always with noobs doing Google searches, is that it finds
too much.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best...protection.htm
http://www.techradar.com/news/the-best-free-firewall
http://www.pcmag.com/article/313986/...free-firewalls
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/free-fi...dows-compared/
http://www.askvg.com/top-5-best-free...e-for-windows/
https://www.geckoandfly.com/12087/5-...osoft-windows/
etc.

Skimming them for the venn diagram overlap, the following free firewalls
seem to be repeated the most in the articles.

ZoneAlarm
http://www.zonealarm.com/xp/
http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/fr...43_119_000.exe

Comodo
http://download.comodo.com/cis/downl...er_6113_c7.exe

My question is which one of those two to invest my efforts in?
Seems that ZoneAlarm is more often mentioned as the number one.
Is that correct?

Or ask like what you did like in this newsgroup. Also,
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/security
--
Quote of the Week: "What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you
know what I did to those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Good Guy replied:

Frankly, you shouldn't be using XP if it is a lot of work!!!!!!!!! It is
time to get back to your old hobby of knitting and cooking.

For what I do on a computer (Microsoft Office 2007 & web browsing and
email), there's nothing on Windows 10 (or 7) that I need. Nothing.

In fact, without the start menu, it's actually less functional.

I know you can sort of kind of mostly regain the start menu, but even with
those classic start menu add ons, the Windows 10 start menu is still not as
simple and easy to manage as it is with Windows XP.

What amazes me is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Windows
XP start menu (as long as you never used the default one).

If you added your own start menu folder in
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Start Menu\{name of your personal menu}
everything worked perfectly (especially if that itself was merely a
shortcut link to a folder in your c:\mydata hierarchy which you backed up
frequently).

They ruined a good thing, just because they wanted people to think windows
10 was different (somehow) from WinXP. And that is why I'm on WinXP.

Shadow replied:

Using a proxy does not call the same amount of attention
(after all, it's just an encrypted connection to a remote site, more
or less the default now) as a VPN.

Hmm. Um. Ok.

Trust me, I live in a dictatorship. If you use a VPN you WILL
be singled out. And VPNs are easy to spot at an ISP level.

I live in the USA, which is a different kind of government that spies on
its own people sans the consent of the people being spied upon.

I would agree with you that many privacy attempts are easy to spot at the
ISP level, and, I would think that hiding your privacy methods from the iSP
is a harder task than hiding your privacy from the target host domain.

For example, if I were to use TOR, the ISP knows that the initial query for
a directory server is made in the clear. Of course, if I used VPN *before*
I used TOR, then they wouldn't know I was using TOR, but they would almost
certainly recognize that VPN was being used and they'd certainly know the
IP address of the free public VPN server because everything on my computer
(assuming no DNS leaks) would be appearing to be coming from that VPN
server.


https://www.quora.com/Can-my-ISP-ide...ng-function-on

I had never heard of "vpn with a cloaking function".

So I read that series of questions and answers. It didn't explain what that
"cloaking function" is, but I'm not in the least worried that my ISP knows
that I'm using VPN if I ever do use

If you have to hide that you're using VPN from your own ISP, then I would
think you have to take far more drastic measures than just setting up
Firefox to be more private.

If I had to hide from my ISP, the first thing I'd consider is using someone
else's ISP although I do realize that this brings in many more factors into
play.

Proxies are often run by hobbyists, and change IP addresses
often. No way some banana regime can keep tabs on all of them.

I want to test out a free public proxy but I'm not sure which one to use.

Shadow replied:

See subject line. I think she was talking about privacy. IOW,
anonymous proxies, not business oriented ones that do the opposite,
and LOG your "indiscretions".

You understood the quest, which is simply to ask for "actionable" settings
(right now, today, in Firefox on WinXP) for increasing privacy.

This sub thread was started because someone kindly suggested "proxies".

The question then becomes something like:

Q: What actionable thing can we all do right now at this very moment to set
up a free "proxy" on Firefox on our home computer such that our privacy is
increased?

IQN replied:

Answer to the last question is no. The hosts file will indeed block
websites, but not IP numbers. It's useless in my opinion, because
websites change their addresses and IP numbers routinely. Take
google for example, which has hundreds of addresses.

This is a good point in that the hosts file blocks "domains' and not IP
addresses specifcially.

127.0.0.1 clickbait.google.com

I wonder if the Hosts file could block an IP address though?

127.0.0.1 123.123.123.123

Would that work?

Speaking of google, Ann Dunham, does not know or care about
privacy or he/she would have had blocked them 100 ways to sunday.

I'm not at all understanding this question, but the question here is how to
set up Firefox for privacy on Winxp.

The goal is to have actionable suggestions for everyone (not just me) to
follow.

We have had good suggestions so far, but this one subthread about "proxy"
so far has had very little by way of actionable suggestions.

What actionable proxy can we set up right now for Firefox on WinXP that
will enhance our privacy?

The short of it, there is no such thing as 100% "privacy" on the
internet. Are you naive enough to think an "Internet Proxy" will
protect your "privacy"? Think again.

To your point, I don't think anyone on this planet feels that a single
action will suffice to "protect privacy" any more than a single action will
protect you from any threat in this world.

We're not that naive.

However, most of us might believe that there are a set of actionable
actions that we can do so that Firefox on WinXP has more privacy after the
action than it had before the action.

Someone suggested "proxy" as one of those actions.

I wasn't the one who suggested proxies and I certainly have clearly stated
that I don't understand yet how to actionably set up a proxy on Firefox so
that it does protect my privacy.

So this subthread is merrely asking what is an actionable action we can do
to increase privacy using Firefox on WinXP via this thing called "proxy"?

All you can do is minimize your footprint by blocking websites.

If all a proxy is, is a "blocker", then it's not much to speak of.
In fact, if that's all a proxy is, then it wasn't worth even this subthread
to speak about it.

Or rather, whitelisting sites you visit and denying everything else,
is what I like to do. It's all about taming your internet browser to
behave. Because left to itself, it will be like a child alone in a
candy store.

If a proxy is just a whitelist and a blacklist, then why didn't you say so
in the first place? We don't need a new word, proxy, just to explain
something as simple as a whitelist and a blacklist.

The OP didn't understand what a "proxy" is and I simply gave
a few instances in which the are used. I was simply following
the subject matter of his/her reply. Noticed I used "his\her"?
Why is that?

I appreciate that you're trying to help.

Even after reading reading everything written, I'm still confused what
"proxy" setting is actionable at this very moment for me to test out with
Firefox on WinXP.

IQN replied:

There are several different types of proxies.

Thank you for stating that because when I googled, I found so much that, in
actuality, because there is so much, I found nothing actionable.

The one you would be looking for is called a
Local Proxy Server which resides on Your computer.

This is what we're looking for!
An actionable answer to Firefox "proxy" privacy!

At least now when I google, I can search for a "Local Proxy Server" for
Firefox on Windows XP!

Basically, it will allow you to either whitelist or blacklist
any website. The problem with it is, very few of them
are great pieces of software. They have their flaws.
Most of them are just a bit annoying. They are about
as hard to set up as a firewall. Thats the software kind.

uh oh? Whitelist? Blacklist?
That doesn't sound like a hosts "redirector".

That sounds like a hosts blocker.
Doesn't the MVP Hosts File already block privacy-leaking hosts?

Is a "Local Proxy Server" just a host blocker?
Or is it a host redirector?

NOTE: By redirector I simply mean that, like with VPN and moreso with Tor,
the final target site has no idea of your "real" IP address.

The Corporate Proxy is usually the hardware type which
is programed to block certain websites like facebook, so
their employees won't spend their workday on social sites.

If that's what a "proxy" is, then it's utterly useless for privacy.
It's just a blocker (by the way you just described it).

I understand that you mean that the person who is blocked has *all* their
traffic funneled through this "Corporate Proxy", where their IP address at
the final target host is "probably" of this "Corporate Proxy" and not of
their actual internal IP address of their computer, but that's what any
decent router does also.

So I don't see how this "Corporate Proxy" helps with user privacy, any more
than a router helps with user privacy (by hiding the actual IP address of
the actual machine from the target host).

A Web Proxy usually caches (saves) web pages and
images or media so that it keeps internet traffic down
to a minimal and has benefits of loading faster and
for when a website is down, it will still load up in
the browser. This is usually done on a Linux Server.
Businesses and corporations normally use these.

I do understand what a "cache" is, so what you're saying is that a "Web
Proxy" is merely a "web cache" of often-used pages (such as news.google.com
or yahoo.com or whatever).

The more you explain about proxies (which I do appreciate), the more I
don't see proxies as having anything whatsoever to do with firefox privacy
on Windows XP.

There are several more I haven't listed.

Do *any* of the proxies have anything to do with "privacy"?
Are any of the proxies "actionable" for a user like you and I am?

In any case,
there are several browser plugins. The one for Firefox
is: "Easy Whitelist". It basically does the same thing
as a Local Proxy Server, with some minor differences.

While I tremendously appreciate that you're attempting to answer the
question (which I do very much appreciate!), I don't at all see how a
"whitelist" or a "blacklist" is any different than the MVP hosts file (in
effect).

127.0.0.1 host.bad-domain.com #Works with domains, not IP addresses

I certainly can appreciate that blocking the bad guys is good for privacy,
but there are already fantastically simple ways to block the bad guys
(e.g., the MVP hosts file as just one example).

So how is this proxy blocking any better than hosts blocking at the
operating system level (where someone else maintains that MVP hosts file
for our convenience but which we can edit with any text editor should we
want to modify it ourselves)?