4 ms·
I'm not so sure about your argument: the usual argument against a VPN is that you are trusting effectively somebody else's computer. They can have all the busin
by Heliosmaster 5y ago
I'm not so sure about your argument: the usual argument against a VPN is that you are trusting effectively somebody else's computer. They can have all the business incentives in the world, but we know that some states go knocking on doors with gag orders. A 5$ wrench (or its threat) can get a long way.
The point is that we can't easily know who is compromised and who is not. There's always a certain level of trust required. The argument is that if you host your own VPS and use that as exit-node, at least what you're buying is more generic and the VPS provider most likely wouldn't care. But again, it's a matter of trust.
- xvector 5y ago> but we know that some states go knocking on doors with gag orders. Hence the need to buy from a reputable VPN, based somewhere where gag orders are not legal. Personally, I'd believe a carefully chosen VPN provider to be more trustworthy than a random selection of Tor nodes.
- DarylZero 5y agoThe idea behind onion routing is not to have to trust individual nodes.
- xvector 5y agoThis does not work in practice.
- Heliosmaster 5y agoThe issue is that whether a VPN is reputable is hard to gauge and not fixed in time. Take IVPN from example: from what I gather they are among the most reputable. They haven't fucked up yet (a-la Nord VPN), they support and fund anti-censorship activities etc. But all of this is based on a perception, that can be doctored if you're determined enough. And usually in the discussions about VPNs the level of paranoia is pretty high to be trusting others. Furthermore, the real issue is that VPNs are not that widespread among the "general public" so compromising a VPN (or running a fake one) seems like a good target for those who want to get at the (current) typical users of VPN.
- bbqbbqbbq 5y ago