4 ms·
I agree with this - VPNs protect you from only the ends of the chain, while centralizing the middle, and it's rather foolish to think that any VPN construct wi
by bri3d 4y ago
I agree with this - VPNs protect you from only the ends of the chain, while centralizing the middle, and it's rather foolish to think that any VPN construct will reliably blind traffic and identity from the VPN provider. Depending on your threat model this is a good thing or a bad thing overall.
However, this "privacy" goal is something that a huge number of VPN providers, including Google, claim as a goal and market heavily against, so it's fair to assess against it IHMO.
As for the second part, yeah, that's pentest reports in a nutshell. A few nuggets of information combined with checklist-satisfying irrelevant findings from automated tooling.
- michaelmrose 4y agoA VPN service that doesn't log should reliable be expected to protect you from dragnet style surveillance that is initiated after the fact. If the government asks google for everyone who searched for a term in a range of dates will return a list of IPs and times. Comcast may choose to happily connect your real identity when asked but a VPN provider that didn't log can honestly answer that they have no way to establish that. At another level a vpn provider that doesn't operate in country can reliably refuse orders to surveil you in the future wherein orders don't rise to the level of obtaining international cooperation AND don't meet standards higher than the nonsensically low standards in say the US. This wont be enough to protect your international criminal empire but might well provide reasonable assurance of privacy to concerned individuals. I'm sure the google one is good for something.... Perhaps keeping your ISP from chiding or blocking you for pirating music until that hole is plugged...or keeping people who access http websites over coffee shop wifi safe?