# SDMB and Anonymous Browsing ad ? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 26, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925 "2002-11-26T18:30:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![andy\_fl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@andy\_fl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andy_fl)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925/1 "2002-11-26T18:30:53Z")
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](http://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 ? ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925/2 "2002-11-26T20:38:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925/3 "2002-11-26T21:18:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925/4 "2002-11-27T04:10:59Z")
If simply using a standard proxy server was not allowed, AOLers couldn’t use the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925/5 "2002-11-27T04:20:44Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![femtosecond](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f08c70/32.png) [@femtosecond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/femtosecond)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2002, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-and-anonymous-browsing-ad/138925/6 "2002-11-27T14:47:03Z")
Does the Chicago Reader really choose every single ad? Maybe they just leased out that space to [doubleclick.net](http://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?