Thinking isn't your strong suit
Imprint9816
joined 1 year ago
I think your misinterpreting your own social anxieties as being made to feel like an "outcast".
The fact of the matter is it's just not normal to question why a store wants your phone number and I'm sure the cashier was taken aback by the whole situation.
Convenience, not privacy, is the norm. There is going to be tons and tons of awkward social interactions when you go against social norms. Accept it and be proud your advocating for your privacy.
I know sharing is caring but it should be said that if you dont plan on seeding anyway, mullvad is perfectly fine for torrenting.
I also think its worth mentioning that proton only supports ephemeral remote port forwarding which is objectively worse then airvpns implementation, if port forwarding is super important to you.
Real Debrid is probably the easiest solution.
From there you can either go the stremio route or plex / jellyfin.
Its a pretty low bar but Android is going to be more private then Windows. Google having privileged access to your phone is still terrible but Windows doesn't really have any privacy protections by default. Android at least does things such as sandboxing its non privileged apps. It also provides a lot better hardware security for your data then most Windows devices would...outside of secure core pcs its pretty trash for hardware privacy in the Windows world.
Yeah. The 2$/month port forwarding option can also be a great deal as well especially if combined with the lifetime pro memberships they used to sell for $30 back in the 2010s.
Mullvad, IVPN, and Proton are the top tier for privacy respecting VPNs.
Windscribe and AirVPN are also decent options but do not have the audit history to be in the same tier as the other 3.
Most other VPNs people mention either have a dubious history or no real proof of their claims to be privacy respecting.
Your a massive a-hole if you get amusement out of people getting screwed out of not being able to use a product they paid to use.
Tor cant save you from bad opsec.
It sounds like they just report the number they are sure of at the time and update the filing later. Very high chance the number of affected is much more then 1.3M - the number of unique email addresses alone makes it pretty clear its more.
The situation doesn't come without precedent either. It's not uncommon for organizations disclosing data breaches with US state officials to update those filings down the line as investigations into potentially compromised data continue.
Yeah not sure why OP felt the need to use such a click-bait title.