4 ms·

Agree with first half, but second half is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. By not keeping logs, a VPN would take themselves out of a situation where

Agree with first half, but second half is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. By not keeping logs, a VPN would take themselves out of a situation where corrupt authorities could exploit their power.

openasocket 8y ago
But they'd also take themselves out of a situation where non-corrupt authorities could use their power appropriately. You have to do the ethical math on the likelihood of either possibility and the consequences, which is subjective.
- gsich 8y ago
  Don't advertise with "no logs" then.
  - detaro 8y ago
    The parent explicitly said that would be unethical, so you agree with them.
  - openasocket 8y ago
    I completely agree, and said so in my original comment.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >But they'd also take themselves out of a situation where non-corrupt authorities could use their power appropriately. Oh, well, if we're limiting the conversation to hypotheticals... How about the idea that your bad behavior doesn't forfeit my right to privacy? I don't care if every other VPN user starts money laundry drug money by selling child porn - when it comes to my VPN logs, you can get lost, and I do nothing unusual or illegal. I have a very American attitude about personal freedoms and privacy. I don't believe that every opportunity for data collection should be implemented just because an authority says it's for "the greater good".
  - openasocket 8y ago
    > I don't care if every other VPN user starts money laundry drug money by selling child porn ... If I require a valid warrant for a carefully scoped query, law enforcement would have to have probable cause, demonstrate that in a court, and get approval from a judge. Note the "carefully scoped" part: they can ask "who was using this IP address at this time to visit this site" but they don't get unlimited access to the logs data. The only way they would be able to get data about you is with probable cause that you are doing something illegal. Even if everyone else using that service is using it for illegal things, that does not constitute probable cause for them to get your data. > I don't believe that every opportunity for data collection should be implemented just because an authority says it's for "the greater good". I agree.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
Logical fallacies are mistakes in logic. The appeal to authority fallacy is when you say something of the form "X is true because authority Y says so". I don't see how supporting warrants falls into that. What statement do you think is being fallaciously supported here, and which authority is being used to support it?
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >I also think that explicitly not keeping logs to protect users from law enforcement is shady to say the least. If law enforcement has a valid warrant, I don't have an issue with providing them with the data they need to find and prosecute. That statement. That because it's an authority they will be just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's best interest. That op has no problem with it because surely no one would ever abuse that power! That's a logical failure if you don't have your head in the sand. But, I'm sure it makes no sense if you've been raised to believe the "government is here to help".
  - openasocket 8y ago
    I said "valid warrant." If I found the warrant to be an over-reach, was on a flimsy pretext, or the request is not properly scoped I wouldn't consider that valid, and would appeal.
    - Nadya 8y ago
      "Your appeal has been denied." You're still considering a just and fair government/system, you've just moved the "just and fair" bit from "the police" to "the judge issuing the warrant". There are a fair number of people who have absolutely no trust in their (or any) government and consider the potential for government overreach. The best way to prevent government overreach is to make sure there is nothing they can reach for. Some people have no issue with the government knowing their "harmless personal activities". While another group of some people believe the government has absolutely no right to know what's going on in their personal lives no matter how mundane.
  - 8y ago

openasocket 8y ago

But they'd also take themselves out of a situation where non-corrupt authorities could use their power appropriately. You have to do the ethical math on the likelihood of either possibility and the consequences, which is subjective.

gsich 8y ago
Don't advertise with "no logs" then.
- detaro 8y ago
  The parent explicitly said that would be unethical, so you agree with them.
- openasocket 8y ago
  I completely agree, and said so in my original comment.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>But they'd also take themselves out of a situation where non-corrupt authorities could use their power appropriately. Oh, well, if we're limiting the conversation to hypotheticals... How about the idea that your bad behavior doesn't forfeit my right to privacy? I don't care if every other VPN user starts money laundry drug money by selling child porn - when it comes to my VPN logs, you can get lost, and I do nothing unusual or illegal. I have a very American attitude about personal freedoms and privacy. I don't believe that every opportunity for data collection should be implemented just because an authority says it's for "the greater good".
- openasocket 8y ago
  > I don't care if every other VPN user starts money laundry drug money by selling child porn ... If I require a valid warrant for a carefully scoped query, law enforcement would have to have probable cause, demonstrate that in a court, and get approval from a judge. Note the "carefully scoped" part: they can ask "who was using this IP address at this time to visit this site" but they don't get unlimited access to the logs data. The only way they would be able to get data about you is with probable cause that you are doing something illegal. Even if everyone else using that service is using it for illegal things, that does not constitute probable cause for them to get your data. > I don't believe that every opportunity for data collection should be implemented just because an authority says it's for "the greater good". I agree.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

Logical fallacies are mistakes in logic. The appeal to authority fallacy is when you say something of the form "X is true because authority Y says so". I don't see how supporting warrants falls into that. What statement do you think is being fallaciously supported here, and which authority is being used to support it?

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>I also think that explicitly not keeping logs to protect users from law enforcement is shady to say the least. If law enforcement has a valid warrant, I don't have an issue with providing them with the data they need to find and prosecute. That statement. That because it's an authority they will be just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's best interest. That op has no problem with it because surely no one would ever abuse that power! That's a logical failure if you don't have your head in the sand. But, I'm sure it makes no sense if you've been raised to believe the "government is here to help".
- openasocket 8y ago
  I said "valid warrant." If I found the warrant to be an over-reach, was on a flimsy pretext, or the request is not properly scoped I wouldn't consider that valid, and would appeal.
  - Nadya 8y ago
    "Your appeal has been denied." You're still considering a just and fair government/system, you've just moved the "just and fair" bit from "the police" to "the judge issuing the warrant". There are a fair number of people who have absolutely no trust in their (or any) government and consider the potential for government overreach. The best way to prevent government overreach is to make sure there is nothing they can reach for. Some people have no issue with the government knowing their "harmless personal activities". While another group of some people believe the government has absolutely no right to know what's going on in their personal lives no matter how mundane.
- 8y ago