6 ms·

Trust and ethics are important. A company that is identified as using questionable ethics in business, for an extended period, is not automatically "reset to ne

Trust and ethics are important. A company that is identified as using questionable ethics in business, for an extended period, is not automatically "reset to neutral" by airdropping in a new management team and a rebrand. Honestly? That sounds more like a move to bury the bad news, which has a long and effective history, just as the day a story goes public does - The Friday News Dump, Thanksgiving News Dump, etc. So, for this PIA user, Kape are in significant negative territory that needs making up to even hit neutral again. Transparency is verification, but it is critical you like what you see. With the newly formed Kape link, owned by Teddy Sagi with extensive links to other online advertising companies, mobile advertising and online gambling. Nothing good for humanity is done by his investments. No, don't like what I see at all. With the reputation PIA had I'm actually really surprised you chose to be associated with such a stable as Sagi's. My sub is due for renewal shortly into the New Year. It won't be.

ActorNightly 7y ago
I honestly want to agree with HN on this, but then Im reminded of the constant support for Apple on here, despite the fact that they have violated user trust on numerous occasions, while PIA has not. So I did some checking: * Teddy Sagi is a entrepreneur. To say that he is an ex spy is a gross misstatement. Yes, he worked as a developer in Israeli SIGINT program - so do a lot of developers who work for any number of government contractors in US with security clearances working in SIGINT. Does that make them all spies? If you wanna believe in the conspiracy that all the Unit 8200 graduates who have gone on to found Silicon Valley Companies are still state sponsored, then man, you gotta start boycotting all your popular software (and some hardware), cause Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and Facebook all have a hand in buying these startups. * Crossmark, the company that Kape originaly was, had malware which is the equivalent of ad supported app on your mobile device - it was bundled with some software (much like Oracle used to bundle Adware with the Java installer), and injected browser traffic, while sending user information back, perhaps for better targeting This is a far cry from actual nefarious malware. Bad? Yes. * Kape technologies is under the lead of a new CEO that was responsible for transforming the company away from Crossrider towards cybersecurity. Again, if you want to believe in a conspiracy theory, that is your choice. * All other Teddys ventures since Kape are in the advertising space. There is a concern that can be made that perhaps advertising is going to sneak in to PIA, but lets cross that bridge if it actually happens. TLDR, pretty much the expected overblown response, which is sadly becoming the standard for HN. By all means, vote with your wallet, but try to keep your voting consistent. Personally, given the web of investors and ownership that surrounds modern tech companies, I do not see any glaring red flags here.
- Tenoke 7y ago
  Are people exaggerating? Sure. But is there more reason to think that their data isn't safe with PIA now than before the merger? Definitely.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I make no mention of Sagi's background, just his investment choices. Those alone are enough to question the wisdom of supporting any of the businesses with my actual money. Yes, let's have some honesty. He's invested in : Founding Playtech an online gambling outfit, a credit card clearing company for online gambling, Kape, Stucco Media - Search engine marketing, and several mobile advertising companies. Not a list many would associate with either ethics or privacy. Not a list I want to give money to or see succeed. All businesses built on erosion of privacy. Colour me unconvinced seeing a privacy oriented company joining that particular stable. CrossRider was nothing like you imply. It was a BHO platform that injected a dll into the browser to allow easier peddling of malware and adware. Why not mention adware? Let's ignore the malware smokescreen you're trying to launch, with them as innocent victim. A platform putting injected adware on my fucking computer is more than enough. Every anti virus and anti malware platform I'm aware of identified CrossRider as a problem, or flagged its shite as "unwanted program". Not liking that they now have a plan b that is not in an injected adware platform is not "a conspiracy theory". It's simple track record. Given what their first plan did, and how, it'll take considerable effort over considerable time for me to even consider them neutral. They may never reach neutral or "trustworthy" again. No all his other ventures aren't in advertising. They are in advertising and gambling - funny you don't mention gambling - that, for me, is more than enough for choosing a business to rely on for trust and privacy. I don't want to support those sectors. I don't actually want them to exist. I don't actually trust anyone in the SEO, advertising or gambling industries at all, from Google and Ladbrokes down. As they keep doing the opposite of the ethical thing, consistently and repeatedly. If PIA, who have built a decent and (as far as I can see) well deserved reputation, want to hitch their future to that. Well it's their disappointing free choice. My money goes elsewhere.
  - jeltz 7y ago
    Online gambling is not in any way built on eroding privacy. You are free to not like how the industry knowingly makes money of off addicts (no, no matter how much they say they care about responsible gambling they will not stop problem gamblers more than necessary to comply with the law), but in my opinion that is the only ethics problem online gambling has that most other industries do not also share.
rasengan 7y ago
Nice comments. When Trump became president, was it still Obama’s administration? Given my knowledge on corporate governance and publicly held companies, I disagree with your first statement. The CEO and management team are absolutely the ones who define the ethics of a company and are legally responsible as well. As for Teddy, I’m not sure how knowing his background and being able to public verify his moves would cause less trust then, for example, the other VPNS which you have no idea who owns them or even where they are located. Transparency builds trust in real life and there is nothing but transparency here. This isn’t a blind faith. PIA has never logged nor has KAPE. Checkout the other providers and see what they have done. It’s gross. Regardless of your decision and your comments, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. While I disagree with some of the statements in the thread overall, I recognize that PIA can do more to provide more comfort to people. Unfortunately, I don’t believe in blind trust and theater so all we can do is continue to increase our transparency until there is no need for you to trust us. And to Zero Trust we are headed. Happy New Year and thank you for the opportunity to protect you until now. I trust we did a good job, and one day, I hope we will have created an ecosystem that doesn’t rely so much on trust in the future so that you might return and we can serve you again. Best, Andrew
- pera 7y ago
  > I recognize that PIA can do more to provide more comfort to people. You could start by looking for a new CTO maybe? I mean, Mark Karpeles was such an obvious bad choice.
- elbrian 7y ago
  > When Trump became president, was it still Obama’s administration? The current president picks up where the previous one left off -- they don't start with a clean slate and no historical baggage.
- samsa 7y ago
  It seems that you are redefining the word "trust" here. I would agree that transparency in a VPN is very important, but surely you have to realize that any time a consumer such as myself is utilizing the services of any third party company, whether it's a traditional software provider, a commercial VPN, a SaaS vendor, etc., etc., there is a trust dynamic taking place. No matter how transparent PIA is about their no logging policy, for example, I have to trust that the PIA team is holding firm to that policy. Yes, that policy has been tested in the courtroom; but all that does is tell me that as of 2018 or whenever you were served you didn't log; it doesn't tell me anything about whether you logged my traffic last month. For that, I need to trust you, based on a multiplicity of factors, that you didn't. Prior court cases form part of that trust, and your outspoken no-logging policy, but your corporate structure is also factors in to whether I trust PIA. It is also worth meditating on the fact that, unlike this very boring (from a legal and political perspective) user, undoubtedly there is a segment of your user base who are dissidents and journalists, for whom the privacy of their online activities truly is a matter of life and death. Trust is like respect; it should be earned, not given freely. PIA had my trust. You have since eroded it. Not completely, but enough that I am shopping for another VPN. If you want me to sign up again, you must re-earn that trust.
DCKing 7y ago
This is exactly my rationale. The fact that you have to explain that the company that bought you is not shady is writing on the wall, even if you have a good explanation. For the record, I think the explanation is pretty decent. But PIA is a commodity product from a technical perspective. It's the trust and reputation that's not the commodity, and being bought by a shady company (even if it's "formerly shady") you discard this right away. I bought PIA because it had stellar reputation back in 2015 or so. Now it went from stellar reputation to "just another VPN provider". Mullvad appears to be prime candidate now, they're not based in the US if that means something to you, and they even have Wireguard to play with. Let's go.
- rasengan 7y ago
  Trust is a fleeting concept. If you used PIA only for the trust and not for the verifiable transparency, then we have failed you. You can't trust some random VPN on internet. Anyone could have set it up. You can only verify. Don't trust. PIA will continue on its mission to increase transparency and set a new standard and expectation in the industry. With PIA, we will make sure you know what you're getting. Some may choose not to go with PIA, and that is beautiful freedom. For the rest, I'm confident people will choose verifiable transparency over blind trust.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Transparency is not verifiable, just as it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. PIA could appear to be 100% transparent while secretly creating and backing up logs, or passing them through a third-party. An auditor is less likely to be fooled, of course. The bottom line is that it's reasonable for us to choose our VPN based on both transparency and trust, and we have no reason to trust the new owners.
  - kadoban 7y ago
    And what, practically, does this verifiable transparency look like? What stops it from being just another _unverifiable_ promise on the internet?
  - slg 7y ago

ActorNightly 7y ago

I honestly want to agree with HN on this, but then Im reminded of the constant support for Apple on here, despite the fact that they have violated user trust on numerous occasions, while PIA has not. So I did some checking: * Teddy Sagi is a entrepreneur. To say that he is an ex spy is a gross misstatement. Yes, he worked as a developer in Israeli SIGINT program - so do a lot of developers who work for any number of government contractors in US with security clearances working in SIGINT. Does that make them all spies? If you wanna believe in the conspiracy that all the Unit 8200 graduates who have gone on to found Silicon Valley Companies are still state sponsored, then man, you gotta start boycotting all your popular software (and some hardware), cause Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, and Facebook all have a hand in buying these startups. * Crossmark, the company that Kape originaly was, had malware which is the equivalent of ad supported app on your mobile device - it was bundled with some software (much like Oracle used to bundle Adware with the Java installer), and injected browser traffic, while sending user information back, perhaps for better targeting This is a far cry from actual nefarious malware. Bad? Yes. * Kape technologies is under the lead of a new CEO that was responsible for transforming the company away from Crossrider towards cybersecurity. Again, if you want to believe in a conspiracy theory, that is your choice. * All other Teddys ventures since Kape are in the advertising space. There is a concern that can be made that perhaps advertising is going to sneak in to PIA, but lets cross that bridge if it actually happens. TLDR, pretty much the expected overblown response, which is sadly becoming the standard for HN. By all means, vote with your wallet, but try to keep your voting consistent. Personally, given the web of investors and ownership that surrounds modern tech companies, I do not see any glaring red flags here.

Tenoke 7y ago
Are people exaggerating? Sure. But is there more reason to think that their data isn't safe with PIA now than before the merger? Definitely.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I make no mention of Sagi's background, just his investment choices. Those alone are enough to question the wisdom of supporting any of the businesses with my actual money. Yes, let's have some honesty. He's invested in : Founding Playtech an online gambling outfit, a credit card clearing company for online gambling, Kape, Stucco Media - Search engine marketing, and several mobile advertising companies. Not a list many would associate with either ethics or privacy. Not a list I want to give money to or see succeed. All businesses built on erosion of privacy. Colour me unconvinced seeing a privacy oriented company joining that particular stable. CrossRider was nothing like you imply. It was a BHO platform that injected a dll into the browser to allow easier peddling of malware and adware. Why not mention adware? Let's ignore the malware smokescreen you're trying to launch, with them as innocent victim. A platform putting injected adware on my fucking computer is more than enough. Every anti virus and anti malware platform I'm aware of identified CrossRider as a problem, or flagged its shite as "unwanted program". Not liking that they now have a plan b that is not in an injected adware platform is not "a conspiracy theory". It's simple track record. Given what their first plan did, and how, it'll take considerable effort over considerable time for me to even consider them neutral. They may never reach neutral or "trustworthy" again. No all his other ventures aren't in advertising. They are in advertising and gambling - funny you don't mention gambling - that, for me, is more than enough for choosing a business to rely on for trust and privacy. I don't want to support those sectors. I don't actually want them to exist. I don't actually trust anyone in the SEO, advertising or gambling industries at all, from Google and Ladbrokes down. As they keep doing the opposite of the ethical thing, consistently and repeatedly. If PIA, who have built a decent and (as far as I can see) well deserved reputation, want to hitch their future to that. Well it's their disappointing free choice. My money goes elsewhere.
- jeltz 7y ago
  Online gambling is not in any way built on eroding privacy. You are free to not like how the industry knowingly makes money of off addicts (no, no matter how much they say they care about responsible gambling they will not stop problem gamblers more than necessary to comply with the law), but in my opinion that is the only ethics problem online gambling has that most other industries do not also share.

rasengan 7y ago

Nice comments. When Trump became president, was it still Obama’s administration? Given my knowledge on corporate governance and publicly held companies, I disagree with your first statement. The CEO and management team are absolutely the ones who define the ethics of a company and are legally responsible as well. As for Teddy, I’m not sure how knowing his background and being able to public verify his moves would cause less trust then, for example, the other VPNS which you have no idea who owns them or even where they are located. Transparency builds trust in real life and there is nothing but transparency here. This isn’t a blind faith. PIA has never logged nor has KAPE. Checkout the other providers and see what they have done. It’s gross. Regardless of your decision and your comments, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. While I disagree with some of the statements in the thread overall, I recognize that PIA can do more to provide more comfort to people. Unfortunately, I don’t believe in blind trust and theater so all we can do is continue to increase our transparency until there is no need for you to trust us. And to Zero Trust we are headed. Happy New Year and thank you for the opportunity to protect you until now. I trust we did a good job, and one day, I hope we will have created an ecosystem that doesn’t rely so much on trust in the future so that you might return and we can serve you again. Best, Andrew

pera 7y ago
> I recognize that PIA can do more to provide more comfort to people. You could start by looking for a new CTO maybe? I mean, Mark Karpeles was such an obvious bad choice.
elbrian 7y ago
> When Trump became president, was it still Obama’s administration? The current president picks up where the previous one left off -- they don't start with a clean slate and no historical baggage.
samsa 7y ago
It seems that you are redefining the word "trust" here. I would agree that transparency in a VPN is very important, but surely you have to realize that any time a consumer such as myself is utilizing the services of any third party company, whether it's a traditional software provider, a commercial VPN, a SaaS vendor, etc., etc., there is a trust dynamic taking place. No matter how transparent PIA is about their no logging policy, for example, I have to trust that the PIA team is holding firm to that policy. Yes, that policy has been tested in the courtroom; but all that does is tell me that as of 2018 or whenever you were served you didn't log; it doesn't tell me anything about whether you logged my traffic last month. For that, I need to trust you, based on a multiplicity of factors, that you didn't. Prior court cases form part of that trust, and your outspoken no-logging policy, but your corporate structure is also factors in to whether I trust PIA. It is also worth meditating on the fact that, unlike this very boring (from a legal and political perspective) user, undoubtedly there is a segment of your user base who are dissidents and journalists, for whom the privacy of their online activities truly is a matter of life and death. Trust is like respect; it should be earned, not given freely. PIA had my trust. You have since eroded it. Not completely, but enough that I am shopping for another VPN. If you want me to sign up again, you must re-earn that trust.

DCKing 7y ago

This is exactly my rationale. The fact that you have to explain that the company that bought you is not shady is writing on the wall, even if you have a good explanation. For the record, I think the explanation is pretty decent. But PIA is a commodity product from a technical perspective. It's the trust and reputation that's not the commodity, and being bought by a shady company (even if it's "formerly shady") you discard this right away. I bought PIA because it had stellar reputation back in 2015 or so. Now it went from stellar reputation to "just another VPN provider". Mullvad appears to be prime candidate now, they're not based in the US if that means something to you, and they even have Wireguard to play with. Let's go.

rasengan 7y ago
Trust is a fleeting concept. If you used PIA only for the trust and not for the verifiable transparency, then we have failed you. You can't trust some random VPN on internet. Anyone could have set it up. You can only verify. Don't trust. PIA will continue on its mission to increase transparency and set a new standard and expectation in the industry. With PIA, we will make sure you know what you're getting. Some may choose not to go with PIA, and that is beautiful freedom. For the rest, I'm confident people will choose verifiable transparency over blind trust.
- smt88 7y ago
  Transparency is not verifiable, just as it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. PIA could appear to be 100% transparent while secretly creating and backing up logs, or passing them through a third-party. An auditor is less likely to be fooled, of course. The bottom line is that it's reasonable for us to choose our VPN based on both transparency and trust, and we have no reason to trust the new owners.
- kadoban 7y ago
  And what, practically, does this verifiable transparency look like? What stops it from being just another _unverifiable_ promise on the internet?
- slg 7y ago