I’ve heard of these but haven’t given them a long look. What is it about mullvad or librewolf that people prefer over Firefox?

Thanks. I currently use hardened Firefox (Arkenfox) and yes I do use unlock.

After your post I did some digging and indeed it does appear as though Parrot OS can be installed through UTM. Thanks for the heads up!

Is SELinux enabled by default in Fedora? I’ve tried researching it but everyone seems to be wanting to do the opposite and disable SELinux (presumably because it restricts ease-of-use)?

I’ve looked at this and would love to but as is my (limited) understanding, Qubes is next to (if not entirely) impossible to implement on Mac M1

Thank you. Again, excuse my ignorance but, I don’t see Parrot on the UTM list… Can Parrot be loaded on top of one of those OS’s? Or are you suggesting Parrot in general, regardless of UTM’s capabilities?

Valid point. I do prefer the UI with Proton, I find it nicer to click through. Also, Tuta usually makes you wait 2-3 days before you can use it - not a big deal really, unless you’re trying to sign up for something new.

I don’t know if what I do is the right way around this but, as stated Proton will reject disposable verification emails and you cannot use another proton account to verify a new one.

My workaround for this is to verify proton with a Tutanota account which is also created with as little to no identifiable information as possible.

TLDR: Proton accepts Tuta emails for verification and Tuta emails can be created anonymously.

You say you use ProtonPass with a free Proton account? Do you know if they have a limit for creating these new emails? I’ve seen ProtonPass advertised but I just assumed it was a premium feature. When I say its tedious, its because when I create new ProtonMail accounts you first have to verify it with another non-Proton account which I find a bit annoying as I dont use services like Gmail etc , but more importantly, Proton has been blocking signups on newly created emails (if you just created the email and then use it to verify a service sign up it gets blocked).

Perhaps I haven’t used it to its full capacity but, I have a free proton account and I still have access to simple login

Thanks for the info. You’ll have to forgive my ignorance as I’m not super well-versed but, I was of the impression that alias software like anon and simple login were more for avoiding spam and unwanted emails from sign ups. Is it also effective as a security tool?

I was referring more to ID required for the sim card set up but, you bring up a good point, there will always be video surveillance. I’m also looking at this more from a privacy perspective, and less from a secrecy or detection perspective so I have no real concerns that a government agency will be trying to track me down.

Where I am, its perfectly legal to purchase a one time sim card. You can walk into the corner store, purchase a prepaid visa (with cash), and buy a sim card (with cash) at the same store. You can then go online, enter the sim card number into the site, add your prepaid visa as payment and whatever details you want. I’ve done it before and there is no ID verification whatsoever - I literally put in John Smith and it worked… As long as they have payment up front, I guess they don’t care. If I’m just using it for one time account verification, I’m not really worried about keeping the sim card long term.

I’ve tried a few of the SMS services online now. They either don’t work or are paid. I don’t mind paying for the service but I find it tedious and cumbersome.

Wondering if perhaps a prepaid sim card paid for using a prepaid credit card would do the trick? I’ve used prepaid sim cards in the past and was able to get one without providing any real information on myself.

Possibly, but other than that there aren’t any real verification steps when entering info to create an account (you can just add bogus info).

If there is a phone number required, I have used burner numbers in the past which may work.

This argument (to me at least) assumes that the other 4 non-voters would have all voted for ice cream which, by just using basic logic, is false. If 3 out of 5 have already voted to drive off a cliff, one has to assume that at least 2 of the remaining 4 would also vote to drive off a cliff. Now this argument is back to square one… How do we find a solution which doesn’t give ‘driving off a cliff’ as an option in the first place?