News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
The requested resource could not be loaded because the server returned an error:
404 Not Found (?).

For all three iterations of the address prefix
Click to expand...
Thats really strange cause it works fine for me.

Screenshot:

cloak.png
 
detroitbootybass said:
Magiccloak doesn't work here either.
Click to expand...
There is some truth to his claims, albeit 'not as advertised'.

On Chromium (I'm using the open-source version of Chrome on Linux) I'm now able to use the 'incognito' mode to access all of WSJ. This may not be as it seems though, and might be limited to a fixed number of 'freebies per session'. I know from having to subscribe to the Times of London how the Murdoch Gang have this figured out, from The Australian to the UK pubs to the US ones. They're all pretty tight.

But one of the requirements I've noted in the past to do this is that once you've opened one page to a Murdoch (News Int'l) pub, that drops a cookie on your 'session'...whether 'private' 'incognito' or 'surreptitious' (I made that one up, lol) and you might have to take your desired link to another browser that's 'fresh' (no session cookies already in place). Sometimes being rebuffed in one browser can open it in another. And then there's Brave, a must have for a number of applications, especially tablets. By far the most 'brief' of all the browsers:
Brave Browser: Secure, Fast & Private Web Browser with Adblocker

https://brave.com/


There's ways to work around the FT as well, even though they're very tight, and Googling the title in a 'new session' of a different browser is necessary. There's a bit more to it than that, but I don't want to give it all away. Once you understand how they sense you, diversion becomes easier.
 
For me the Facebook hack works for:

Washington Post
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Financial Times
Globe & Mail
But not for Toronto Star
 
Fresco said:
For me the Facebook hack works for:

Washington Post
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Financial Times
Globe & Mail
But not for Toronto Star
Click to expand...
You have a unique set of circumstances up on your machine. Just because it works for you does not mean it works for others. There's a multiplicity of factors that come into play, not least that you've pretty much given a way back into your machine to hackers by doing it the way you have.

Nuff said...
 
ShonTron said:
And they did.

John Barber, amongst other columnists, is free at last.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinions/columnists/John+Barber.html
Click to expand...
lol...the link is long gone, but I had quite a few close friends in Ed at the Globe back then, and they were furious about the paywall...at that time! It was a pretty unpopular move, especially to the better known journos, and sure enough, the 'click number' plummeted for a lot of them.

Ten years later, the mood is very different. Journos now encourage you to 'sign up' (as I have at my favourite pubs where I still know people) as 'if you value my work, you'll afford me a few pennies'. It is a model that's finally becoming the lifeline for many.
 
steveintoronto said:
You have a unique set of circumstances up on your machine. Just because it works for you does not mean it works for others. There's a multiplicity of factors that come into play, not least that you've pretty much given a way back into your machine to hackers by doing it the way you have.

Nuff said...
Click to expand...
This is a really dumb post. You can get hacked visiting almost any site.

Just make sure you have a good firewall and anti-virus
 
steveintoronto said:
lol...whatever. I can find no review or anything on-line to substantiate why anyone would wish to host such a site for free.

Please feel free to provide that...

Lots online, like this:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-even-the-best-free-vpns-are-not-a-risk-worth-taking/
Click to expand...
Steve, that article talks about VPN's. A VPN is software that you install on your computer.
That is totally different from cloacking websites or using the Facebook trick, neither of which require you to install any software.

So yes, with VPN's you can most definitely get spyware embedded within it.
But I never mentioned VPN's in my previous posts, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up
 
Same difference for the sake of what you're doing, save it's not encrypted:
[...]
Another issue is that open proxy servers are often operated by hackers, Internet "con-artists", and people with similar intentions. All they really want to do is collect personal information from you, which they will easily accomplish if you use their proxy server carelessly. If you've used free proxy servers in the past, you might have wondered why those proxy servers were often and suddenly shut down. This is very often due to the fact that the operator accounts were created by individuals using stolen credit card information. When they are discovered, these proxies are quickly closed by the providers.

Hackers commit many illegal acts, including credit card fraud. They simply wait for you to use your financial information (including CC info, bank, passwords, etc.) while you are connected to their proxy server, and that's that. Make no mistake, the server operators/admins can, and very likely will, read all your traffic and use it in any way they want to.

The bottom line is: If you use a free proxy server, you are running the risk of being an identity theft victim, and your computer could even be used to commit crimes without your knowledge.
[...]
Click to expand...
http://www.yourprivatevpn.com/proxy_en

Lots more on the internet...except nothing on MagicCloak. No reviews, barely even a mention. But you entrust your access through them and recommend others do same.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top