[froddd]

So, should they be requested to do so by a formally issued court order, they would comply and start logging a user’s activity, but do not do so by default.

Calling them worthless at providing secure browsing seems far-fetched; calling them a scam is fully disingenuous.

[jhugo]

What, specifically, is the “secure browsing” that they offer and how does it improve on HTTP over modern TLS?

Funnelling your traffic through another entity doesn’t magically increase security.

[ang_cire]

*Tunneling* it through one hides the nature of that traffic from intermediary systems that it traverses from you up to that VPN exit point.

There is a lot of metadata in packets that can be viewed by any interim hop, like your ISP, workplace IT security, ARP-cache-poisoned coffeeshop router, etc.

[DEADMINCE]

> ARP-cache-poisoned coffeeshop router, etc.

Eh, that's not really a thing anymore.

[ang_cire]

Not for Starbucks, who does fancy per-user VLANs, but for your local spot that's using an AP-router-combo they bought at Best buy, it sure is.

[froddd]

Being able to cover/scramble your actual or virtual location can provide security in some contexts

[Shared404]

It also would prevent your ISP or local attackers from seeing the domains you are reaching out to, which is still visible over https.

It's all tradeoffs.