Just because someone chooses not to be a privacy advocate, I don't think that means it is universally accepted that they are "freeloading".
Usually the people who I see make these kinds of arguments are the ones that don't participate in normal society and live in a bubble, and pretend capitalism isn't necessary for most people to live their lives.
Yes, and it comes with Tor Browser, which normally does not spoof your OS when probed via javascript (only the user-agent), that is why I asked if you had a patch to the source code, which is what they would have to be using in order to do what you're saying.
All of them report your operating system to be Windows
As it stands, I am not able to verify your claims, as Tor Browser on Tails 6.7 is still showing the true OS via javascript queries for me:
It's actually worse than that... he influenced them.
His screeds against Jewish people became so well-known at home and abroad that he is the only American whom Adolf Hitler compliments by name in Mein Kampf.
Right, even the most secure/private browser cannot help opsec failures... if only one person visits the same website(s) at the same time every day, you are not anonymous. But we all must define our own threat models and apply what's realistic for us individually.
I would be very careful about saying Tor/Mullvad/Brave are anywhere near approaching k-anonymity... Tor Browser cannot even hide your real OS when queried from javascript, and there are current ways to detect all of those browsers independently.
I think one problem is that most people's (general non-tech population) browser setups are completely bone-stock, and so by definition "random like everyone else" is likely already excluding all the stock users and placing you in a much smaller box to compare against.
Just FYI You would have to be using the same exact browser configuration you normally browse with, otherwise the fingerprint it uses will be different.
They ask the push providers (Apple/Google) for data on the push token from e.g. a messaging app. This way they associate the account from an app with an identity.
Very overlooked point. You can find privacy guides online but very few even suggest that FCM etc. might have privacy issues, let alone explain exactly why. It seems this has already been used by law enforcement in the past: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-surveillance/
The Molly-FOSS fork of Signal (which aims to be even more secure/private) actually supports self-hosted push notifications using UnifiedPush.
As far as I know, FCM on Android can be configured to use a notification payload (which is piped through Google's servers). But for a release app this is discouraged, especially if you are privacy conscious. An app would normally use FCM to receive a trigger and look up the received message from the app's own backend. See here for more information.
If you care about security, don’t put a Sim card in your phone.
Depends on what you mean by security... or privacy. You need to define a threat model before any suggestions can be made.
If you're worried about someone hacking into your phone via an app, a sim card likely won't make a difference.
If you're worried about your location being tracked... that can often be done without a sim card or any cellular service on your device.
Then there are malicious carriers (or ones compelled by a government) that could track you without even having legitimate service activated. All phones at least in the US now are mandated to have (A)GPS receivers.
My understanding is that they don't... practically at all. But if compelled by a court to give your information, they could later learn that the information you provided was false. Or maybe someone reported you and they ask for some type of verification. Either way, it's one of many tactics that can be used against someone, even if you only gave fake information to protect your own privacy.
Frivolous DMCAs have also been used to reveal identities of people someone didn't like.
I can see the argument from both sides... and maybe both is true. I think the same could be said about twitter... having to login to read tweets means they can easily track who looks at what... which is very valuable information to a lot of people with money.
I think the only issue with that is that when/if it is found out then the domain will likely be seized because you violated your contract with the registrar to provide accurate information.
I wish they didn't switch to requiring a login to search code... seems like a big privacy issue cause you just know they're saving all those searches and associating it with your account.
Just because someone chooses not to be a privacy advocate, I don't think that means it is universally accepted that they are "freeloading".
Usually the people who I see make these kinds of arguments are the ones that don't participate in normal society and live in a bubble, and pretend capitalism isn't necessary for most people to live their lives.