[ryanlol]

This is terrible. Whoever "That One Privacy Guy" is, should really consider not being a dick and stop pushing VPNs as a privacy tool.

And yes, you're a dick if you even kind-of imply that VPNs might be good for privacy without immediately providing a strong disclaimer: if it matters, they aren't.

Edit: Oh wow, it's worse than I expected. Check out https://thatoneprivacysite.net/choosing-the-best-vpn-for-you...

The vast majority of the recommendations here have absolutely no connection with reality.

This entire website is bullshit, here's a few quick quotes.

>a. More on Trust

>As a lawyer represents your legal interests, a VPN service (among others) represents your privacy interests.

>c. Jurisdiction >In the last few years, certain revelations have been made manifest regarding the mass surveillance programs of various countries around the globe. These countries are known as the five, nine, and fourteen eyes. These countries not only spy on their own citizens where they can get away with it, but they spy on each others, and swap notes to bypass governmental restrictions on power. If a service, or the people who run a service is based in one of these countries, it’s not unreasonable to expect that they may be susceptible to unlawful searches and compromises made in the name of national security

Suggesting that NSA & Co. don't spy outside of FVEY (or fourteen eyes if that's what you prefer) countries is utterly ridiculous at it's face and just makes it look like the author hasn't studied this stuff at all.

Instead of blogging about mass surveillance and unlawful searches, maybe focus on the more realistic issues like search and wiretap warrants which are ridiculously easy to get in some countries?

[noja]

I can see you complaining, very strongly, but wouldn't it be better provide some kind of constructive feedback.

[pc86]

If the feedback "this is utter garbage" I'm not sure there is any constructive feedback.

Sometimes you just need to say something is garbage and move on.

[ryanlol]

I guess you replied to the wrong post, I made a rather explicit recommendation.

>you're a dick if you even kind-of imply that VPNs might be good for privacy without immediately providing a strong disclaimer: if it matters, they aren't.

This website reads like it's written by an amateur from some torrenting subreddit, there's not much constructive feedback to be given here besides "do some actual research and do it all again"

[noja]

Have you done some research? Can you tell us what you recommend?

[ryanlol]

>Have you done some research?

Yes.

>Can you tell us what you recommend?

For privacy? Tor.

[photoGrant]

What's your advice?

[ryanlol]

If privacy is the concern? Tor.

[AlexCoventry]

It really depends on your values and threat model. With a few thousand dollars and few weeks it wouldn't be that hard to flood the Tor network with enough of your own nodes to capture the routes of an appreciable fraction of traffic. It would be extraordinary to me if the NSA hadn't already done this.

[ryanlol]

And it's still easier to trust Tor than any VPN provider :)

[antihero]

Sure, but for day to day browsing, Tor is shit. This is more to prevent dragnet bullshit like the UK RIPA which requires ISPs to keep a list of sites visited.

[ryanlol]

>Sure, but for day to day browsing, Tor is shit.

Sure, but for privacy, VPNs are shit. You can't recommend VPNs for privacy.

If this was branded differently, I'm sure it could be a great resource.

>This is more to prevent dragnet bullshit like the UK RIPA which requires ISPs to keep a list of sites visited.

The site doesn't really read like that, it has several suggestions that don't seem to apply to those seeking only for minimal levels of privacy to maybe hide from the local government.

As a quick example:

>Avoid VPNs that use CloudFlare, Incapsula, and other such services.

Doesn't seem like a major concern for someone only worried about UK RIPA.

[Freak_NL]

> Sure, but for privacy, VPNs are shit. You can't recommend VPNs for privacy.

Why not? Doesn't it depend on your purpose and threat level? If you have state level actors chasing you than VPNs will only be part of your opsec toolchest — preferring TOR where possible and being very strict about where you access the internet (certainly not at home). But if you are just downloading the latest episode of Sherlock from your local hive of wretched scum and villainy, a VPN will surely help.

VPNs are only part of the solution of course (not using any social media, not connecting to any of your normal accounts, limiting VPN use to whatever it is you want to keep private), but you seem adamant that even this is not a valid use of VPNs, or am I misreading your posts?

[ryanlol]

>But if you are just downloading the latest episode of Sherlock from your local hive of wretched scum and villainy, a VPN will surely help.

Then you should recommend VPNs for that specific purpose, never for generic "privacy".

>VPNs are only part of the solution of course (not using any social media, not connecting to any of your normal accounts, limiting VPN use to whatever it is you want to keep private), but you seem adamant that even this is not a valid use of VPNs, or am I misreading your posts?

This is reasonable, I use VPNs for similar purposes too. But recommending VPNs for "privacy" needs to come with a big disclaimer. "If it's something that actually matters, they won't help you."

If you do something illegal using a VPN in very many cases your local police department will be able to use mutual legal assistance treaties to search and/or wiretap your VPN providers.