|
|
|
|
|
by spxneo
779 days ago
|
|
So your narrative is that they have complete access but choose not to act on anything they find on VPNs and other "privacy focused" tech? Makes sense as there has been no cases involving terrorist using Mullvad and such. So Mullvad is not good enough for terrorists but good enough for the rest? This makes no sense to me. |
|
If they are a state actor, then the goal would be to use the intelligence only for parallel construction in the most severe cases like terrorism.
If they are not a state actor, then the goal would be to be so private that if terrorists use it, nobody would ever know including themselves.
In both cases, we see the same result as the public until somebody leaks.
This means that you would be very unlikely to get busted using a state compromised VPN for torrenting movies, as that's typically a civil matter and would require additional data points for parallel construction to not reveal the compromised VPN.
But if you are involved in terrorism, then you should assume the VPN is compromised in a way that will make digging up additional secrets about your activities trivial and attributable to something besides the VPN that everyone is fine with (like dragnet service provider data).