[beauHD]

> However, the worst case situation is that they lie about not tracking users and then they get hit with a LEO request they bow down to.

That's within reason though. A VPN is another ISP afterall, so they have to 'bow down' to law enforcement requests. What LEAs can get depends on how zero knowledge the VPN setup is. OVPN[0] for example has been 'court tested' and Mullvad had nothing to give to authorities[1] since they don't collect it in the first place (apart from payment metadata).

I'm not affiliated with OVPN or Mullvad, just a happy paying customer.

[0] https://www.ovpn.com/en/blog/ovpn-wins-court-order

[1] https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2023/4/20/mullvad-vpn-was-subjec...

[yegor]

A VPN is not an ISP, at least as Canadian law (currently) is concerned. ISPs are required to store IP assignment logs, VPNs are not. Additionally, VPNs (in Canada) cannot be compelled to log users.

Source: Our law firm (I'm from Windscribe), and first hand experience with RCMP.

[trclst]

"OVPN acquired by Pango, parent company of Hotspot Shield: what does it mean for users?"

https://alternativeto.net/news/2023/5/ovpn-acquired-by-pango...

Article updated 2023 https://blog.windscribe.com/the-vpn-relationship-map-2023/

[Ms-J]

It's only "reasonable" if the subpoena comes from a court in the country the VPN is headquartered in. And just like you said, what LE can get depends on how the VPN is setup. If it's no-logs, anonymous payment, randomly generated user ID's, and servers not allowing dumping of the connections, there isn't much to give to the law at all.