4 ms·

> Exactly. Is there anyone whose primary use case for a personal VPN is not "Geofence bypass for region-locked content"?? Hi! /waves I use a VPN to stop my ISP

> Exactly. Is there anyone whose primary use case for a personal VPN is not "Geofence bypass for region-locked content"?? Hi! /waves I use a VPN to stop my ISP from monitoring my traffic and selling my personal information. My VPN (usually) exits in the same "region" as my real location; I guess if I hit a geoblock I could look at that, but it hasn't come up.

aborsy 3y ago
You can set mullvad (which offers VPN service) as your DNS over https server. Traffic is also mostly encrypted by https. Your ISP still gets the destination IP addresses, though they are harder to track. Wouldn’t that address your concern?
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  I think this is the old way of thinking about it. Skipping the broader discussion of AI, the ridiculous amount of automatic and human impossible pattern, matching and correlation with seemingly harmless data is something that I don’t think we are equipped to fully comprehend. The time at which I hit some meta CDN, seems harmless. Until combined with some cookie and some access time to some asset it uniquely identifies me to previously anonymized data. So no, I do not think HTTP and a good DNS are enough.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  IP addresses and host names (as defined in SNI). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  No; until Encrypted Client Hello is ubiquitous HTTPS still has domains in cleartext. Also, I don't think we should be casually dismissing tracking by IP addresses.
dec0dedab0de 3y ago
Hi! /waves I use a VPN to stop my ISP from monitoring my traffic and selling my personal information. But then how do you stop your VPN company from doing the same? You essentially have two ISPs now.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  If the local ISP has a 100% chance of monetizing my data and the VPN provider has anything less than that, then it's still a win. (Longer answer: This boils down to the weighted probabilities; if the ISP was meaningfully regulated such that it was legally restricted from doing certain things with my data, that might matter, and one should also play in the exact likelihood that either party is selling my data. In my case the weighted probability is wildly in favor of a VPN, but I suppose I can imagine situations where that wouldn't hold.)
- jddj 3y ago
  I VPN to a $5 vps in a distant country. I kill and move/re-up it once or twice a year. They probably could sell my traffic, but I estimate it (based on vibes) as being less likely than for most other intermediaries
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  It’s their business (value proposition) to not do the same and most explicitly commit to that. They also get third party aidiots and publish results. This isn’t fool proof but it’s better than trusting Comcast or ATT or whoever.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stouset 3y ago
You're just trading your ISP for a different third-party who has all the same incentives.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > You're just trading your ISP for a different third-party Yes. > who has all the same incentives. And no. The ISP has little to no competition or incentive to not sell my information, while the VPN provider has loads of competition and often has user privacy as a core part of their value proposition. Besides - even if both of the did have the same incentives, one openly says they're selling my data and one says they're not. At worst it's a gamble between the VPN lying and the ISP telling the truth.
  - M2Ys4U 3y ago
    You don't have competition between ISPs? I can trivially switch between as many (if not more) ISPs as well-known VPN providers.
    - soylentcola 3y ago
      In many (US, at least) locations, there is only a single provider of fixed broadband. Not sure how it is elsewhere, but without a more customer-friendly framework (infrastructure isn't owned by the same entity selling user access), I can't imagine too many places have multiple, parallel cable or fiber networks in a single town/city.
    - unsignedint 3y ago
      The availability of internet service providers typically varies by state and even by city. In many cases, your choices might be limited. Often, you may find yourself restricted to a single cable provider, with the possibility of DSL, but not much else, unless you consider wireless options. Installing a wired line can range from very difficult to nearly impossible. Cities might impose a moratorium on new installations, often due to lobbying, and even if installation is permitted, the costs can be exorbitant. For example, the cost of laying new lines can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with service providers generally unwilling to cover these costs. One recent quote I saw was as high as $160,000.

aborsy 3y ago

You can set mullvad (which offers VPN service) as your DNS over https server. Traffic is also mostly encrypted by https. Your ISP still gets the destination IP addresses, though they are harder to track. Wouldn’t that address your concern?

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
I think this is the old way of thinking about it. Skipping the broader discussion of AI, the ridiculous amount of automatic and human impossible pattern, matching and correlation with seemingly harmless data is something that I don’t think we are equipped to fully comprehend. The time at which I hit some meta CDN, seems harmless. Until combined with some cookie and some access time to some asset it uniquely identifies me to previously anonymized data. So no, I do not think HTTP and a good DNS are enough.
hnlmorg 3y ago
IP addresses and host names (as defined in SNI). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
No; until Encrypted Client Hello is ubiquitous HTTPS still has domains in cleartext. Also, I don't think we should be casually dismissing tracking by IP addresses.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago

Hi! /waves I use a VPN to stop my ISP from monitoring my traffic and selling my personal information. But then how do you stop your VPN company from doing the same? You essentially have two ISPs now.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
If the local ISP has a 100% chance of monetizing my data and the VPN provider has anything less than that, then it's still a win. (Longer answer: This boils down to the weighted probabilities; if the ISP was meaningfully regulated such that it was legally restricted from doing certain things with my data, that might matter, and one should also play in the exact likelihood that either party is selling my data. In my case the weighted probability is wildly in favor of a VPN, but I suppose I can imagine situations where that wouldn't hold.)
jddj 3y ago
I VPN to a $5 vps in a distant country. I kill and move/re-up it once or twice a year. They probably could sell my traffic, but I estimate it (based on vibes) as being less likely than for most other intermediaries
blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
It’s their business (value proposition) to not do the same and most explicitly commit to that. They also get third party aidiots and publish results. This isn’t fool proof but it’s better than trusting Comcast or ATT or whoever.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stouset 3y ago

You're just trading your ISP for a different third-party who has all the same incentives.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> You're just trading your ISP for a different third-party Yes. > who has all the same incentives. And no. The ISP has little to no competition or incentive to not sell my information, while the VPN provider has loads of competition and often has user privacy as a core part of their value proposition. Besides - even if both of the did have the same incentives, one openly says they're selling my data and one says they're not. At worst it's a gamble between the VPN lying and the ISP telling the truth.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  You don't have competition between ISPs? I can trivially switch between as many (if not more) ISPs as well-known VPN providers.
  - soylentcola 3y ago
    In many (US, at least) locations, there is only a single provider of fixed broadband. Not sure how it is elsewhere, but without a more customer-friendly framework (infrastructure isn't owned by the same entity selling user access), I can't imagine too many places have multiple, parallel cable or fiber networks in a single town/city.
  - unsignedint 3y ago
    The availability of internet service providers typically varies by state and even by city. In many cases, your choices might be limited. Often, you may find yourself restricted to a single cable provider, with the possibility of DSL, but not much else, unless you consider wireless options. Installing a wired line can range from very difficult to nearly impossible. Cities might impose a moratorium on new installations, often due to lobbying, and even if installation is permitted, the costs can be exorbitant. For example, the cost of laying new lines can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with service providers generally unwilling to cover these costs. One recent quote I saw was as high as $160,000.