3 ms·
The major VPNs log, this has been shown in court cases. If they say they don't they're either using a limited definition of log, straight up lying, or about to
by elsjaako 5y ago
The major VPNs log, this has been shown in court cases. If they say they don't they're either using a limited definition of log, straight up lying, or about to run into problems with the government.
My source isn't an open one, but here is one (that sites different cases than I saw): https://restoreprivacy.com/vpn-logs-lies/ https://restoreprivacy.com/vpn-logs-lies/
- xvector 5y ago> The major VPNs log, this has been shown in court cases. Some VPNs have proven no-log in courts, eg PIA. The VPNs in your article are far from reputable.
- elsjaako 5y agoPurely out of interest, how has this been proven?
- xvector 5y agoWhen asked to provide logs in a legal case, PIA claimed it was unable to as it had none. If you were to tinfoil hat, you could perhaps argue that this is to make PIA an even more viable honeypot. Alternatively, if your conspiracies don't run that deep, this makes PIA more trustworthy than the Tor network.
- waynesonfire 5y agoOkay but to be clear that's not a requirement for the problem being addressed here, which is attempting to get through censorship. Anonymous browsing is a more general problem. I don't think the OP made a good argument that VPN is a suitable solution, but certainly introducing unnesccessary requirements may be disqualifying a possible working solution. Now, if the censor has the power to invoke great harm to those attempting to bypass then anonymous browsing is the requirement.
- elsjaako 5y agoIf you only care about viewing censored materials and don't care about the repercussions of getting caught, then I agree that a VPN is a fine solution. It's probably easier to use and faster for most customers, with the downside that you have to pay.
- bbqbbqbbq 5y ago