> The following stage of apologetics can be that you need to solely TOR browser for Tor community and onion routing.
Uhm… yeah? What’s the controversy right here? A browser utilizing Blink can’t emulate the fingerprint of a browser utilizing Gecko and vice versa. So even when Courageous’s Tor mode hides your IP deal with, it doesn’t have the frequent fingerprint of the Tor Browser Bundle. Courageous really says to make use of the TBB if you wish to do greater than conceal your IP deal with, proper if you enter Courageous’s Tor mode.
> Now the mind tease: Why even provide a TOR mode whether it is damaged?
You act as if the Tor mode is Courageous’s essential promoting level, LOL. No, it isn’t.
I don’t must justify options which might be used solely by a minority of Courageous customers, really I don’t use the Tor mode both. So my response to that is: Who cares? If you realize about Tor then you realize about fingerprinting, and that Courageous doesn’t have the identical FP because the Tor Browser Bundle.
> All trustworthy errors!
Sure. The bug inflicting the leak was launched once they carried out CNAME uncloaking for Courageous Shields, a characteristic which no different Chromium-based browser has. So that they have been getting into new territory right here, and this will produce bugs. They mounted the bug when it was reported on GitHub.
In accordance with you, why did it occur? Are you insinuating that the ISPs or the state have been paying Courageous Software program to introduce the bug? That’s known as a conspiracy idea, my essential man, and isn’t actually in line with them fixing the bug instantly upon listening to of it. If it was intentional, they might have deleted the bug report and would have completed nothing.
Btw, Firefox had varied leaks of its personal a few of which included the complete add-on checklist which may uniquely determine you. However hey, when Mozilla does it, it’s a bug, when Courageous does it, it’s an enormous conspiracy. LOL.
> Identical to the afiliate hyperlinks
You do notice that generic (= not generated per person) referrals can’t uniquely determine customers, proper? The referral simply stated: “Hey, I’m a Courageous person!” and nothing extra. The identical occurs when Firefox provides its personal referral to the ensuing URL everytime you carry out a Google search (that is the premise of Google’s funds to Mozilla, btw, that is how Firefox’s visitors on Google is measured), however then, I assume, when Firefox does it, it’s a great way of granting the browser desperately wanted funding from large Daddy Google, when Courageous does it, the motives must be inherently evil and sinister regardless that the motive is identical. It’s known as double requirements.
> your policing of feedback
Because of you, the topmost remark is stuffed with trolling that’s meant to impress. When your trolling is corrected by information, this provides you the chance to say bullshit like “policing feedback” and so on. It’s getting boring. I used to be attempting to be good once I stated you have been an ignorant, really, as a result of what you actually are is somebody performing malicious, provocative trolling.
> Ouch! Main design failure.
Dude, Courageous has 50+ million customers. The one factor the HTTP request header is telling you is that the browser the particular person is utilizing is Courageous. This isn’t that invaluable with 50+ million individuals utilizing the browser, I might not be shocked if it had its personal person agent. This data has no precise affect on person privateness.
Your “factors”, if we are able to name it that, have been introduced up advert nauseam right here, and have by no means been legitimate and even notably fascinating. Why do you suppose you dumping them right here for the one centesimal time provides something new to the dialogue? I really yawned once I learn your parroted nonsense, because it wasn’t the primary time.