Talk:Anonymous proxy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Expansion

There is plenty of material for expansion in the two cited references. I am busy with other pages now, so please be WP:BOLD. Dhaluza 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something in an ad about anonymizer software and wanted to see what it was, I went to the anonymizer INC website and my internet security said that this site put my computer at risk for being hacked, and proxy avoidence, not sure what the second one is but the first one is obvious, mabey this should be mentioned. [January 13th 08 4:08pm Pacific time]

Trademark

Anonymizer is an internationally registered trademark of Anonymizer Inc. It should not be used in this generic sense any more than "Xerox" should be generic for "photocopy".

Good luck with that. But out of curiosity, what would be your suggested alternative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhapgood (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

It is not so much luck as a legal issue. This is a clear violation of trademark. There are plenty of other terms including "privacy enhancing technology", "anonymity system", "anonymous proxy", "anonymous network", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceCottrell (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the Anonymizer people like the fact that this article bears its name. I would propose to rename it to "Internet anonymity". There are several privacy and anonymity articles that touch on the subject. I believe that the information here, plus recent developments would make a very nice article. There should also be articles that list anonymity networks, systems and applications. 90.136.218.67 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about calling it "anonymous internet browsing" or "anonymous web browsing"? I've heard those phrases used a lot in conversation. Hatfields (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the law did not require the company to actively protect its trademark (or else loose it), I would love to see the article have our name at the top. As it is, we do need to actively try to stop infringing uses. I would support either of the above names for the article, and would support having a link to the article right at the top of the Anonymizer company article. The article on Xerox does this perfectly. LanceCottrell (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a nice chap, Lance Cottrell, unlike some folk *coughTimLangdellcough*. However, I must protest that this is a slightly silly enforcement of trademark. The article is called 'anonymizer' because anonymizer is the adjective version of anonymous. An anonymizer anonymizes stuff. That's why this page (which is about anonymizers) is named 'anonymizer'. The trouble with your claim is that I could reasonably claim the same if I trademarked a company called 'Water' and then went to the wikipedia page on water and complained. And it would be just as silly. :/ 118.210.250.178 (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Anonymizer" was not really used before our company coined the term. LanceCottrell (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

The "Purpose" section seems riddled with weasel words and unattributed, odd declarations. "Some may view".. "illegal government snooping"? I don't even know what to call that last phrase. Oh that government, spying on people. Illegally. What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.188.26 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... actually, the govenment can't do whatever it wants. Remember the wiretapping scandals? To "spy" on people, the government has to get a warrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.65.48 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone?

I'm really not a huge fan of the tone in this article, it seems quite negative and almost critical of anonymizing web proxies and doesn't describe any of the benefits or positive uses of them, such as protecting one's basic human right to privacy. Just because someone is using a proxy doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The tone of this article seems to assume otherwise. 24.167.36.53 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is disputed

The POV tag was added today. It says, "Please see the discussion on the talk page," but I can't find anything on the talk page about POV, except for the "Tone?" section added December 2009. Did I miss something?

About a week ago, I removed an unsupported statement that seemed to have a religious bias. Other than that, I can't see anything that seems non-NPOV.

I did not write this article, but would like to help improve it. You can help too. How can we improve the article?

Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]