What VPN have you switched to after the Mullvad situation. I have looked at nym and ivpn. But don’t know if they are any good.
What VPN have you switched to after the Mullvad situation. I have looked at nym and ivpn. But don’t know if they are any good.
Removed by mod
dear lord…
I give up. I wish you good luck in your quest.
Removed by mod
Hey, what you are doing is harmful.
A person who needs privacy and anonymity shouldn’t have to justify using the vpn service that has most definitely passed the highest bar when it comes to resisting governments.
The mere presence of a service that advertises feature parity is no comparison to one that has passed the real world test of those offerings.
It’s like believing someone’s claim of steel grade and processing without test marks on the surface. Sure it’ll probably be fine for a big tractor shed, but when you’re relying on the material to hold up an apartment building it’s not worth it to take those claims on faith.
If you were living in a war zone and needed a gun to protect yourself or your family, would you turn down an ar-15 simply because of the rifles history? Of course not.
Removed by mod
I am not aware of any other vpn service that has been raided with a warrant for any information present and had the police come away completely empty handed.
That raid I’m thinking of served two functions: one was to get any information available, the other was to investigate mullvads infrastructure in order to evaluate if it was possible to get a warrant to install logging capacity.
While the inability to install wiretaps (logging capacity) has not been explicitly confirmed by law enforcement like the inability to get any data was, we can assume it was impossible because rather than pursue that direction, Interpol advised cdns and hosting providers to block mullvads endpoints instead.
The reason we are able to assume a warrant for wiretapping was impossible is that the action taken, making mullvad unusable to the point that the company dropped port forwarding, has the effect of flushing the target out from the service which is not what you’d want if you were able to install a wiretap.
It’s evidence of a type of trustworthiness borne out by the effects of actions surrounding the service, not just tests, audits or press releases. That is something unique and if it’s not I’d really like to know.
That’s not just rhetoric, I’m truly interested in other VPNs whose impact with law enforcement left only cloud chamber evidence of their trustworthiness.
Your idea that people should apply the strictest ethical scrutiny to their own purchases in the marketplace really seems like it’s based entirely on the liberal assumptions that the marketplace is frictionless and has many goods of equal quality on offer.
It’s also, on another level, patently ridiculous that a person who is choosing a battle tested privacy and anonymity focused vpn should choose something they’re less sure about because they need to somehow avoid any microfraction of blame flowing to them through the market from the specific currency units they used in the transaction.
It’s cool, I know the immigration police are kicking down our door, but at least I didn’t use the gross vpn associated with a person who donated to a fascist party.
At some point you gotta recognize that not only does your reasoning not hold up to theoretical interrogation (how could blame for the effects of transactions flow down to the purchaser if everything solid melts into air, huh? Explain that lieberuls!) but is absurd in the very real life situations you bring up.
It’s like some bizarre inversion of the old “they say the next drone bombs will be dropped by a black trans woman” joke.
Removed by mod
You just said I made a strong case that mullvad has the best infrastructure then at the end said you wouldn’t fund it when alternatives exist. My whole point is that alternatives don’t exist.
A person who’s using proton is getting something fundamentally different (and in a lot of ways more featureful!) than mullvad.
I really cant even begin to address the moral/ethical angle you’re working from other than to simply call it absurd.
Oi! You got a loicense for that spending money in the marketplace without bearing the burden of others decisions?
Imagine for a second that you don’t like Donald trump. You have two neighbors, one of them is very wealthy and loves trump. Your wealthy neighbor runs the local supermarket and made a huge donation to the local campaign for trump. Your other neighbor is very poor and apolitical, well, you never heard them talk about politics. They don’t have a car and shop at the local supermarket. Trump wins your district and is elected and you find out your poor neighbor didn’t vote.
Who bears responsibility for the election of trump? Would it have been different if your poor neighbor voted?
Removed by mod
What ethical consideration, the party he did donate to does not even remotely support the claims you are making. And also there is the consideration of what type of democracy we want.
Do we want one where people are free to donate and get involved with whatever party and opinion they want without prosecution?
Or do we want a democracy where you are only allowed to have opinions allowed by the state?
Removed by mod