3 ms·

Shouldn't prosecutors prove that it was you and not someone else?

detaro 6y ago
"Should", yes. (Details obviously depend on jurisdiction) For that, they get a warrant to search your home and for your computers to be confiscated to do the forensic analysis on them. You might get them back after a few years if nothing can be proven. They also might tie you into it for knowingly supporting it by installing such a VPN, some places make you responsible for everything happening through your connection by default. See the "fun" people operating TOR exit nodes have for what can happen.
- risyachka 6y ago
  True, but there is a big difference in operating an exit node and using a VPN. Millions have VPNs installed. These is only a small amount of exit notes, and millions use VPN. I'd argue that the chance of being accused because someone used your connection in p2p VPN is less than when someone will use your wifi to do something illegal.
  - _jal 6y ago
    The more relevant question is, what does this software offer that would make it worth taking on this risk? For whatever values of 'this risk' you evaluate running this code to carry. Arguing semantics with a prosecutor might be your idea of a good time, but that seems to me like the sort of thing I could do without. In any case, they may call this a VPN, but it isn't a VPN in the sense that term is normally used, and it certainly isn't even vaguely similar to that VPN connection you make to the office.
- chii 6y ago
  Why can't anyone who join be incorporated as a utilities provider, and shed the responsibility of monitoring the traffic (and the legality of it) to the initiator of said traffic? I mean, ISPs do this don't they? Telephone networks do this don't they?
  - q3k 6y ago
    ISPs generally are able to pinpoint the originator of the traffic, ie. for a given connection 3-/5-tuple provide information on the originating customer, their physical address, contract data, etc. This is the tradeoff when registering an ISP in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with: you are immune to legal action concerning the data that is carried over your network (ie. you won't get raided for a customer sending death threats), but in return you must cooperate with the authorities and provide data on your offending customers. You must do whatever is necessary to be able to provide this data upon a subpoena: from assigning static IP addresses / CGNAT port ranges to customers, to logging every NAT translation from your roaming mobile network. Source/background: operating an ISP in Poland.

"Should", yes. (Details obviously depend on jurisdiction) For that, they get a warrant to search your home and for your computers to be confiscated to do the forensic analysis on them. You might get them back after a few years if nothing can be proven. They also might tie you into it for knowingly supporting it by installing such a VPN, some places make you responsible for everything happening through your connection by default. See the "fun" people operating TOR exit nodes have for what can happen.

risyachka 6y ago
True, but there is a big difference in operating an exit node and using a VPN. Millions have VPNs installed. These is only a small amount of exit notes, and millions use VPN. I'd argue that the chance of being accused because someone used your connection in p2p VPN is less than when someone will use your wifi to do something illegal.
- _jal 6y ago
  The more relevant question is, what does this software offer that would make it worth taking on this risk? For whatever values of 'this risk' you evaluate running this code to carry. Arguing semantics with a prosecutor might be your idea of a good time, but that seems to me like the sort of thing I could do without. In any case, they may call this a VPN, but it isn't a VPN in the sense that term is normally used, and it certainly isn't even vaguely similar to that VPN connection you make to the office.
chii 6y ago
Why can't anyone who join be incorporated as a utilities provider, and shed the responsibility of monitoring the traffic (and the legality of it) to the initiator of said traffic? I mean, ISPs do this don't they? Telephone networks do this don't they?
- q3k 6y ago
  ISPs generally are able to pinpoint the originator of the traffic, ie. for a given connection 3-/5-tuple provide information on the originating customer, their physical address, contract data, etc. This is the tradeoff when registering an ISP in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with: you are immune to legal action concerning the data that is carried over your network (ie. you won't get raided for a customer sending death threats), but in return you must cooperate with the authorities and provide data on your offending customers. You must do whatever is necessary to be able to provide this data upon a subpoena: from assigning static IP addresses / CGNAT port ranges to customers, to logging every NAT translation from your roaming mobile network. Source/background: operating an ISP in Poland.