Well from previous SDMB posts, I’ve seen that hiding your IP address was something SDMB never allowed any discussion on.
Needless to say when I saw theURL=http://www.anonymizer.com/products.shtml]Anonymizer Ad on the straightdope.com start page, I was surprised.
I am not a computer expert and I am assuming anonymous browsing is the same as hiding your IP address (?)
So whats the straight dope on this ad ?
Well, isn’t that interesting? I haven’t seen that particular ad, but all I know is that using that or a similar service to access the SDMB is grounds for immediate banning. I’m not sure what’s going on, but I’ll see what I can find out. Meanwhile, I’ll move this thread to ATMB.
Wait… when you say “access”, you sound like you could mean “viewing pages”. Is this correct? Would someone, theoretically, risk banning simply by viewing pages through a proxy? This cannot be correct, at least I hope that it is not. I understand and support the ban on anonymous posting, but how can merely viewing pages violate this policy?If it’s not too much trouble, I’d like a precise definition of “access”, and also of “similar services”, just so that things are clear.
If simply using a standard proxy server was not allowed, AOLers couldn’t use the SDMB.
A WAG is that the SD doesn’t get in your face until you try to post through a shield or anonomyzer. Whatever it’s called.
How could viewing bring you a problem?
Does the Chicago Reader really choose every single ad? Maybe they just leased out that space to doubleclick.net to display a family-friendly smart-people ad package. Computer security ads match the target group, so they’re displayed.
The administrators keep a list of blocked IPs that includes some anonymizers, which were used by too many returning trolls to no longer be acceptable. I believe the banning only refers to accounts (and those relating to them) created through an anonymous e-mail address - thus violating the registration agreement “required to submit and maintain a valid E-mail address”. As long as they got that (leaving us some privacy but still something they can set the lawyers on if necessary) they shouldn’t care if somebody does access the board through a secure channel. We can’t blame them for not encouraging us though, since a traceable IP would be another backup. But I don’t think it’s strictly required for reading even less than for posting, right?