7 ms·

> after PIA was bought by a malware distributor This is a false statement [1] > and hired Mark Karpeles as their CTO This is also a false statement [2] [1]

> after PIA was bought by a malware distributor This is a false statement [1] > and hired Mark Karpeles as their CTO This is also a false statement [2] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21681711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21681711 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21821832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21821832

jorvi 7y ago
It would be nice if you added the disclaimer that you are the founder of PIA, not some unbiased grassroots guy.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> This is a false statement My comment cites a number of third-party criticisms. Yours cites a PIA PR statement. > This is also a false statement Mark Karpeles being hired as the CTO of PIA's parent company versus PIA per se is a legal distinction, not a practical one. His having no "operational role" is vague, unverifiable and misleading with respect to his title. PIA sells trust. Its parent company hired a convicted liar to its C suite. These are good reasons to decamp.
- rasengan 7y ago
  > Yours cites a PIA PR statement. This is false. The rest of your opinions are, as you said, unverifiable. Regardless, i appreciate your opinions and we are going to learn from them to become an even more solid company to ensure that we can continue to deliver on the promise that has been verified countless times - that we are the only proven no log VPN provider, and multiple times. Good luck with your choice and hope it works out for you. You can continue to choose VPNs on trust -- I suggest that everyone else choose VPNs on verification. Cheers, Andrew
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > The rest of your opinions are, as you said, unverifiable Calling a Tokyo court's criminal judgement [1] an unverifiable opinion is problematic. (It explains the hire, I suppose.) > we are going to learn from them For what it's worth, I believe you're well meaning. But you've given away the keys to the kingdom. Your intentions are less relevant. (Best case, I imagine, is you pull a Jan Koum in a couple years.) If a VPN user wants a vetted, verified, open-source client, they should use OpenVPN or WireGuard's. (If they want a convenient client, they use the VPN provider's.) The unavoidable trust in a VPN relationship is in what's running on the servers. That's a people problem. And PIA has serious people problems. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-mt-gox-bitcoin-bigwig-found-guilty-wont-likely-do-time-11552613358 https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-mt-gox-bitcoin-bigwig-fo...
    - rasengan 7y ago
      Again, assumptions without verification. I do mean well but you're continuing to make false accusations which were never true so its clear you don't.
      - Lammy 7y ago
        It is not an assumption or false statement that I had bitcoins in Mt.Gox and now want nothing to do with Mark Karpeles or anything under him :)
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > assumptions without verification With all due respect, if you live in a world where criminal convictions are an unverified assumption, that’s problematic. You’ve linked to zero external sources. Others have. PIA et al hired a convicted liar. Competitors haven’t. PIA et al sold to a company that distributes malware, gutted another VPN with dark patterns and then lied about all of that; others haven’t. These are substantiated points. Linking to comments from your colleagues is as disingenuous as wrapping a Kape VPN as trustworthy.

jorvi 7y ago

It would be nice if you added the disclaimer that you are the founder of PIA, not some unbiased grassroots guy.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> This is a false statement My comment cites a number of third-party criticisms. Yours cites a PIA PR statement. > This is also a false statement Mark Karpeles being hired as the CTO of PIA's parent company versus PIA per se is a legal distinction, not a practical one. His having no "operational role" is vague, unverifiable and misleading with respect to his title. PIA sells trust. Its parent company hired a convicted liar to its C suite. These are good reasons to decamp.

rasengan 7y ago
> Yours cites a PIA PR statement. This is false. The rest of your opinions are, as you said, unverifiable. Regardless, i appreciate your opinions and we are going to learn from them to become an even more solid company to ensure that we can continue to deliver on the promise that has been verified countless times - that we are the only proven no log VPN provider, and multiple times. Good luck with your choice and hope it works out for you. You can continue to choose VPNs on trust -- I suggest that everyone else choose VPNs on verification. Cheers, Andrew
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > The rest of your opinions are, as you said, unverifiable Calling a Tokyo court's criminal judgement [1] an unverifiable opinion is problematic. (It explains the hire, I suppose.) > we are going to learn from them For what it's worth, I believe you're well meaning. But you've given away the keys to the kingdom. Your intentions are less relevant. (Best case, I imagine, is you pull a Jan Koum in a couple years.) If a VPN user wants a vetted, verified, open-source client, they should use OpenVPN or WireGuard's. (If they want a convenient client, they use the VPN provider's.) The unavoidable trust in a VPN relationship is in what's running on the servers. That's a people problem. And PIA has serious people problems. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-mt-gox-bitcoin-bigwig-found-guilty-wont-likely-do-time-11552613358 https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-mt-gox-bitcoin-bigwig-fo...
  - rasengan 7y ago
    Again, assumptions without verification. I do mean well but you're continuing to make false accusations which were never true so its clear you don't.
    - Lammy 7y ago
      It is not an assumption or false statement that I had bitcoins in Mt.Gox and now want nothing to do with Mark Karpeles or anything under him :)
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > assumptions without verification With all due respect, if you live in a world where criminal convictions are an unverified assumption, that’s problematic. You’ve linked to zero external sources. Others have. PIA et al hired a convicted liar. Competitors haven’t. PIA et al sold to a company that distributes malware, gutted another VPN with dark patterns and then lied about all of that; others haven’t. These are substantiated points. Linking to comments from your colleagues is as disingenuous as wrapping a Kape VPN as trustworthy.