top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 212 points 5 months ago (25 children)

JFC were losing the internet everywhere.... we're just slaves to nation-states and corporations...

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] 139 points 5 months ago (22 children)
  • [–] 65 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Joke's on you, in the UK we have a "left wing" government and they're doing the best they can to fight against privacy!

    Oh wait.. I guess the joke's on us nvm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago*

    As much as this chart is misused, it shows that left and right can be both authoritarian - thus pushing anti-privacy nightmare like this.

    There is a war going on against online freedom, and we are losing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Yeah... I pay attention to UK politics mostly to avoid hyper focusing on depressing domestic politics, and it's devastating to see Labor shit the bed the way they have.

    Like, you guys are supposed to be better than us (it's a low bar)! But they squandered their mandate in the most perverse and infuriating way. I'm sorry. Shit sucks.

    Anyway, that's my half-assed perspective from listening to Pod Save the UK, the Bugle, and reading the occasional article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    the UK has it rough. They have a dogshit conservative government for a decade and then get pissed when the left cant clean it up in a single term. Also most of the voters are still falling for conservative outrage bait drumming up a ton of distraction issues like migrant crime and rape gangs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Labour isn't the left. Keir Starmer lied about everything to become the leader of the Labour Party as the face of Morgan McSweeney, Steve Reed and Peter Mandelson's "Labour Together" right wing project because they knew the membership, which is generally centre left, would never vote for them if they were honest about their intentions. They hid 75% of their donations until after the contest was over, violating electoral law.

    Lo and behold, they're doing disability cuts, trans moral panic, privacy violations, outsourcing to American tech barons and clamping down on protest rights. Starmer suspended several MPs early on for voting against the government's policy of keeping the two child cap on benefits.

    However, you are partially right that the right wing press still doesn't approve of them and are manufacturing dissent, despite Labour's cruel anti-migrant and pro-capital policies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    From what I've seen the good far outweighs the bad and it is what I would consider left wing. When you look at the reasons why he did the things you're attacking its not like its his ideal policy, he had his reasons and seems that if the circumstances were different he would be more free to pursue a further left wing stance. Government isnt always getting what you want, you must balance the budget and fight to spend your political captial most efficiently getting wins where they matter most. I dont think hes done a great job but its not half as bad as people claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    To be fair, the issue (or at least my point) here is not that they didn't magically fix everything. It's that they actively introduced things (like the online safety act) and are continuing to pursue things (like extending it to vpns) which didn't exist before and are hostile towards online privacy.

    I do agree about the general mentality being outrage based which benefits the right.

    It's actually quite interesting to look at the party manifestos in England Vs Scotland for the same parties. Reform UK has seen some success in the recent Scottish election and I believe part of it is that their "Scottish" manifesto reads closer to a regular conservative party (so only medium insane), whereas it's batshit insane in England. I don't think a lot of people compare those, despite it being the same party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Yes I understand being pissed off at some horrible legislation but focusing on single events and painting an entire picture will destroy any politician. Focusing on his worst legislation ignores all the good stuff he has passed and makes people think the left is just as bad when objectively that is not the case.

    Like even looking at the online safety act. Thats popular legislation with majority support. Think of all the things that wouldnt have happened under a conservative government, rail nationalization, strengthen labour laws, green energy expansion and reform, prison reform.

    All his biggest controversy kind of pales in comparison to the good done. So to throw all that out just seems very stupid to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I see your point and also agree with you, but at the same time it seems like you're implying it's a binary choice. Either we support labour or we support the right. The way I see it, they're a centrist party now at best. I want to support a more leftist/libertarian party. I don't have to run to vote for reform just because labour didn't do as well as I hoped, but I also don't need to vote for labour if they do things I hate (which the war on privacy is).

    And of course the online safety act passed with a majority. They're using the easiest manipulation tactic to describe all of these type of bills that exists. "It's for the children". It takes a lot to oppose it while making sure you don't give ammunition to be smeared with "oh they hate kids/don't care about children's wellbeing" while defending it is as simple as repeating it's to protect kids. Doesn't even matter what the bill does as long as it can loosely be related it's a guaranteed "moral high ground".

    Lastly, I don't think it's good to excuse bad policies by saying they also did other good things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    you’re implying it’s a binary choice. Either we support labour or we support the right. The way I see it, they’re a centrist party now at best. I want to support a more leftist/libertarian party.

    I understand that perspective and im not trying to say its binary because its fine to vote that way. I just think even if you want to support a more leftwing party people should refrain from carrying the exaggerated right wing narratives against labour because they still need a strong center left party to pickup the votes for people who arent as far left.

    Lastly, I don’t think it’s good to excuse bad policies by saying they also did other good things.

    I am saying that the good things are bigger than the bad so you should focus on the good rather than the bad. They already have every right winger focusing on the bad, they dont need it from the left as well. Theres a difference between talking about the bad policies in a critical way and then shitting on them every single time their mentioned and running down their list of worst policies. Rail nationalization is huge, its a huge win for the left and it should be talked about at every opportunity so people are encouraged to vote left.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    I don't understand your comment, I thought liberals had a majority government...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    They did, this guy is just being edgy and predictable.

    Blame all problems on conservatives, even when they're not in power. Libdippers can do no wrong. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    I mean, the Libs are doing everything I'd expect from Stephen Harper's Bank of Canada guy and the Tory's Bank of England guy.

    Not being able to tell if the Libs or Cons are in charge just feels like more evidence of how far we've ratcheted to the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Mark Carney is 3 Conservatives in a trench coat.

    Now, he is an actual Conservative, which is a hell of a lot better than a reactionary extremist that are calling themselves Conservative these days, but there's a reason Conservative MPs have crossed the floor to join his party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That's just as absurd as saying Pierre Pollievre is 3 Liberals in a trench coat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago*

    Not in the slightest, no. PP doesn't have any liberal policies (he doesn't have any policies), Mark Carney is all conservatives policies from 20 years ago before they leaders decided to go off the deep end. Mark Carney worked for the Harper government.

    Again, why do you think so many Conservative MPs have crossed the floor to join the New Conservative party?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I'm sure liberals would pass on the opportunity to have more power and control and would totally thrash the whole thing.

    /s, but should be obvious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Liberals have a much better track record with this sort of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (16 children)

    If you're a Canadian, please contact your MP about bill C-22, and do it now. They're voting on this in the next few days.

    https://dontsurveil.me/

    Salt Typhoon, a hacking group connected to the Chinese government, used the backdoors put in place by CALEA in the US to spend months buried deep in US telecoms providers surveilling citizens. The Liberals are proposing to put in place a worse version of those exact same backdoors. Bring this up to your MP, remind them that when the Chinese (or North Koreans, Iranians, Russians, or even Americans) inevitably exploit these backdoors to do the same thing to us, it's going to blow up in their faces.

    Read the link above for more salient points about why this is bad law. Read Open Media's articles on it (https://openmedia.org/press/item/ottawa-repackages-its-surveillance-backdoor-in-bill-c-22). Bring up these points to your MP. Email them. Phone and demand to speak to them. Make a stink about this.

    If nothing else, send the form letter from Open Media (the other options are better, but something is better than nothing); https://action.openmedia.org/page/188754/action/1#main-content

    They already tried to pass this law once and it failed. Yes, they have a majority now, but it is a very slim majority. If a few MPs defect this bill will die.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

    Pretty sure my MP blocked me because their office never respond to my inquiries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Phone their office, demand to know why you haven't heard back from them. Make them search through their emails and pull up every message you ever sent. Make them uncomfortable. Be a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    What is a reasonable period of time to give them to respond to an email? They could be absolutely inundated with complaints, and it would be unreasonable to expect them to move particularly fast.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    Instead of theorizing, just call and ask why they haven't responded. If the answer is "Because we're snowed under", well, there you go. And now they know that you really give a shit because you're badgering them for a response. They get a lot of form letters but very few people follow up. That immediately ups the seriousness in their minds.

    Be unreasonable if you have to be. I don't mean impolite. Be nice to the human being on the other end of the line. But be demanding. Your MP works for you. Make them work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    Phone their office, demand to know why you haven’t heard back from them. Make them search through their emails and pull up every message you ever sent. Make them uncomfortable. Be a problem.

    The part of me that is pessimistic (that part seems to be growing these days...) thinks they would just hang up on you and if you call them back enough times they'll call the police on you to report you for harassment.

    Not to discourage people, but it's just frustrating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    You're assuming a bad outcome and then acting as if it's a guaranteed outcome. This is maladaptive behavior under any circumstances.

    Please actually talk to a therapist about this if you can. I guarantee this behaviour pattern is occurring in other places in your life, and it's not healthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Is it okay to assume a bad outcome after it has happened? What about while it's happening?

    Please psychoanalyze me using only a couple sentences, that will definitely help.

    The truth is, we obviously don't know for sure what will happen, but it's also not likely to be surprising if it doesn't go our way. It's the most likely outcome and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight, though.

    I'm certainly not surprised anymore with all the shit I've seen over the years and how the enshitification seems to be unavoidable these days. People, companies, etc are not held accountable and it shows. It'd be nearly impossible to not become jaded after enough things go wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    So, you're saying that an MP has filed a police report against you for harassment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Ah, that's all you took away from all I said. Very cool, I can see you're clearly conversing in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Not remotely. It's just the part that seemed most prudent to focus on.

    My comments about speaking to a therapist were entirely sincere. The fact that I didn't just choose to respond further when you bristled at them is because they were sincere. I'm not here to belittle you or try to get in a fight with you. And you're right, I can't psychoanalyze a stranger over the internet, which is why I'm not trying to. Just asking you to speak to someone professional who can. As the saying goes, "I don't have to be a helicopter pilot to see one in a tree and figure out that someone fucked up." You're displaying very obvious signs that you need some kind of help, but saying any more than that would definitely be stepping out of my lane.

    I boiled down the rest of your response to one point because that one point crystalises my disagreement... Or, to be more specific, I think it crystallizes where you misread my previous remarks.

    Let's clarify the context here. This what I previously responded to:

    "The part of me that is pessimistic (that part seems to be growing these days…) thinks they would just hang up on you and if you call them back enough times they’ll call the police on you to report you for harassment."

    When I pointed out that this was unhealthy behaviour, you didn't actually engage on that point at all. Instead you built a strawman. Your reply;

    "The truth is, we obviously don’t know for sure what will happen, but it’s also not likely to be surprising if it doesn’t go our way. It’s the most likely outcome and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight, though."

    ...is framed as if I had made some broad statement about the likelihood of success of the entire endeavour. I didn't. I responded specifically to your suggestion that an MP would quite literally call the cops on you just for demanding to speak to them.

    So if we're going to bandy about accusations of arguing in bad faith, I could just as easily choose to point to this as an example of doing the same.

    What I did instead, rather than throwing around accusations, was choose to focus the discussion back down to the most pertinent point. I chose that question because it serves three purposes simultaneously;

    • If you were arguing in bad faith, it would illustrate the failings in your argument.
    • If you were unintentionally misreading my point, it would clarify the difference between our arguments.
    • The question itself was genuine; you might have answered "Yes", in which case I would operating from a false assumption, and you would have corrected me in that.

    But you chose instead to take it as an attack. That's... Telling, to say the least.

    Anyway, I'll sign off of the conversation here. It's clear from your responses thus far that either by intention, or because you cannot help yourself, anything I say is just going to continue to get twisted up into either another attack on you, or another reason to feel down.

    I hope the rest of your week gets better. I do mean that sincerely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago*

    So which part is unhealthy behaviour exactly? Calling them multiple times, or expecting that if you called them constantly they would report you for harassment?

    Literally all you have done is throw around accusations, there's zero chance you are speaking to me in good faith. All you have done is insult me and misrepresent what I am saying.

    If you called an MP every single day, and they keep hanging up on you, do you really think there's zero chance you would get reported for harassment?

    The only person who said my week was bad is you, I actually had a great week, not that it's any of your business? You're literally just a stranger online, you're trying to psychoanalyze me, and you're failing at it.

    Maybe you should be the one seeking help instead? It certainly seems like people don't agree with you and they do seem to agree with me.

    I've wasted enough time talking with you, I'm blocking you now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    My MP told me to fuck off and that it was a good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago*

    I'm not sure what you feel like you're adding with this reply.

    Well done for making the effort. Thank you, and we all appreciate it.

    But what do you want other people to take from this? Are you trying to discourage other people from taking action? Because you encountered resistance other people shouldn't try at all, even though they might end up speaking to someone more receptive?

    Even your MP may end up changing their mind if enough people speak up. The goal is not to single-handedly sway their opinion, it's to add your voice to a growing chorus. You're joining a movement, not fighting a solo battle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I like how you throw in 'even the Americans' with the spying groups. We definitely spy in all our allies. And in return we encourage our allies to spy on us. It is a very calculated political game where we (all the allied countries) pass legislation and safeguards in our respective home countries and declare our citizens free of authoritarian government surveillance, but then work with the other countries spy agencies to do it for us. We intentionally put in the backdoors in our peoples networks and hand the keys to our partners just so we can say 'well I wasn't spying on you. That would be illegal!' But in the end it is effectively the same. If the allied government finds anything of interest they just send a notification over. We each have boundaries that we respect in spying on each other's people too. It is almost a formallity by this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 68 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Why is our liberal government a fuckass conservative government?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    Neoliberals want that the entity controlled by voters - the elected government/president/whatever (depending on country) - to not watch over or control the things which are important for Money (in their parlance, to "not interfere with the Free Market", which in turn justifies privatising everything).

    In other words, to make the Power which is controlled by voters be below the Power Of Money.

    They're against Democracy and in favor of Oligarch with "democracy" as a theatrical façade focused only on Moral subjects and not doing anything at all for other things which constrain the Freedom of most people.

    Notice how the more hard-core Neoliberal the mainstream "center"-"left" parties in a country are (and the one Canada is pretty hard-core compared to most of Europe, tough even then not quite at the level of the Democrats in the US) the more their entire public political fight with the (Fascist) "center"-right is in the Moral space (Identity Politics) and the less it is in terms of freedoms which are limited by the control of Money over everything required for survival (with productive and shelter assets being owned mainly by a handful of people, so the rest are forced to toil within conditions controled the former group merely to have food and shelter).

    In summary, they shrink "Democracy" down to a system that represents voters in the Moral sphere only where they loudly "battle" the "right" and everything else important to voters is controller not by a system where every person has one and only one vote and all votes count the same, but by a system where each dollar is a "vote" and some people have billions more "votes" than others - in other words, it's not Democracy anymore because in most domains the vote which is equal for all individuals controls nothing at all.

    I'm not fully familiar with the politics in Canada (though what I've seen of the Liberals is basically what I describe above), but all of this shit is painfully obvious in both the US and Britain, plus it has already infiltrated the rest of Europe to quite an extent (especially the EU, since Neoliberals use its supranational powers which are supposedly to facilitate Trade Integration, to force Neoliberal policies on countries, especially those in the Eurozone).

    Anyways, all this to say that the increasing Authoritarianism you see in the more Neoliberal countries is the mainstream "center" parties which control power making sure they can detect and subvert early any civil society movements which might wrestly power away from them - in other words, the final destruction of whatever is left of Democracy and the path which is still left through the vote to undo the Oligarchic system (which would require the mainstream parties to lose most of their vote to alternatives naturally born from the civil society which weren't just puppets created by wealthy individuals, something which already is very difficult in countries with First Past The Post systems and which total civil society surveilance is meant to make impossible)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Higher-stakes, less-entertaining professional wrestling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Personally I'm more of a believer in the saying "Politics is Acting for ugly people".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Both sides are equally authoritarian once in control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • That is not today's problem. The Brian Mulroney conservatives don't have a home in the party of extemeists that is lead by pp, or Erin O'Toole, or Andrew Scheer. Now the Liberals are right of center and lean strongly into neo-lib ideology. Justin Trudeau was a neo-lib hiding under the veneer of decent social policy. Jagmeet Singh was also a neo-lib. Our progressive politicians suck right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Based on what happened with their e-mail, I imagine if the courts mandated IP logging for VPNs, Proton would still advertise their no-logs policy until they get caught out in a scandal and then silently update their marketing material & privacy policy afterwards. lol

    ProtonMail 2018:

    Now, Swiss courts have never tried to force us to log IPs, and the law is not completely clearly if we have to comply or not. If we got such a request, we would probably fight it just to test this out.

    Did they ever end up fighting anything out? lol

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I doubt they did - they only speak up for the fictional customer, meanwhile silently complying to whatever government requests user data from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    They still don‘t log your IP and advocate to not even give them your data, though. If you give them your credit card number and then use their services to sell illegal substances and if authorities of your country then find your e-mail address and contact Proton about it then their hands are pretty much tied. If you use one of their offered anonymous ways to pay for their services then there is nothing they can give authorities. Ultimately it‘s your job to take care of your identity and Proton offers ways to protect it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    You should contact Proton and tell them they need to rewrite their homepage.

    We are a neutral and safe haven for your personal data, committed to defending your freedom.

    Our technology and business are based upon this fundamentally stronger definition of privacy, backed also by Swiss privacy laws.

    Proton is based in Switzerland, and your data does not go to the cloud. Instead, it stays under the protection of some of the world’s strongest privacy laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    Also Proton: "metadata logging does not count as logging, and handing our logs, I mean non existent logs that only contains totally useless metadata, over to the Swiss government is fine because its the Swiss law"

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    I kinda want to see what they handed over. They cannot get around the fact that they need to be able to handover data when legally asked with a warrant.

    But I do kinda want to see if it is actually useless metadata or it is just our entire history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Most likely, the logs consist of what IPs are leased to what users, when the connections start and end, and what IPs those users are connecting from. A VPN company may keep the logs for something like 2 days.

    Let's say you torrent something while connected to a VPN and one of the peers in the torrent pool is actually a DMCA agent associated with IP-Echelon. The DMCA agent will record the IP address you have at the time and generate a DMCA notice. It will then look up who owns the IP address to determine where to send the DMCA notice. When the VPN company receives the DMCA notice, it will use the logs to determine who was leasing the IP address at the time in question. If the logs no longer exist, the notice effectively gets tossed because the VPN company has no way of knowing what account was downloading the torrent. But if the notice was sent quickly enough for the logs to still exist, the VPN company will forward the DMCA notice to the user that was using the IP at the time. In that case, it will work the same way as a normal ISP. You'll probably get a warning with something like a 3 strike policy. In such a case, the VPN will cut your VPN service on the third strike.

    Presumably, it could work the same way for anything. I used to work for a VPN company a decade ago, and this was pretty much the industry standard. It, like all VPN companies, advertised itself as having no logging.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    The best way to prove you don't hold any logs is by doing on audit on it.

    In the story you explained it would be better to not use a VPN since Dutch providers don't share your name when somebody comes to them with a list of IP's.

    Thank you for the response though!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    To be clear, a VPN provider effectively works the same way as an ISP. If you use a Dutch VPN, it will follow the exact same rules as a Dutch ISP. Given, you should verify that it actually is based out of that location and not just incorporated there with no office and a PO box. In a DMCA situation, the DMCA agents generally are never told the identities of anyone by an ISP or VPN provider. But the ISP or VPN provider forwards the notice to the user with the associated account as they're legally required to do. If the worst case scenario happens and you get your VPN service cut, you've still got your ISP and can just move to a different VPN provider. Having your ISP service cut, on the other hand, may leave you with no service options at all. You don't get privacy with a VPN, but you do get a stopgap like that.

    Edit: Also signing up for VPNs that don't record your personal information is probably a good practice as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Mullvad got the best advertising ever in this regard: they literally got the police at the door and the police didn't found a shit, hillarious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The normal police is always bad at finding digital info. You want them to be audited and/or raided by the finance police (not sure how that is calld where they are located)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I lost my info on whether I'd signed up for mullvad already, so I sent them an email asking if I had an account with them.

    They told me to get fucked.

    I then bought an account, not caring then whether it was redundant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    In that case, it will work the same way as a normal ISP. You’ll probably get a warning with something like a 3 strike policy. In such a case, the VPN will cut your VPN service on the third strike.

    It also depends on where you live. In my country, copyright infringement is just a small fine, and you can get dozens of those copyright letters from your ISP and be fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    I worked for a VPN company a decade ago that advertised no logging. It was all BS. They absolutely logged. Maybe they only kept the logs for something like 48 hours, but I'm pretty sure all VPNs have some kind of logging going on. Anyway, a VPN by itself does not give you any privacy. Websites have a billion ways to fingerprint you, and they don't even need cookies to do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    privacy implies vpn (or some mix-net), but not the opposite... so if you want privacy, you need a vpn, but a vpn by itself doesn't give you privacy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's a small step out of many. And there's enough steps now that an average person is pretty much never going to have it, unfortunately. But there is more and less exposed. There's untraceable, and there's traceable with more effort than anyone will likely bother. Considering countries like russia have tried and failed to block VPNs, they're certainly worth something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    I'd argue that VPNs remain one of the highest return-on-investment (time and money) steps towards online security, as many gaps as they do have in the big picture.

    It's not going to make you untraceable. But it'll make you difficult enough to trace that nobody's gonna put forth the effort to target you specifically unless you've attracted like, nation-state attention. (Targeting you as a member of some demographic a la advertisers, yeah not much effect).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    VPNs are to protect you against your ISP, that is about it. I guess sailing the high seas also since fingerprinting doesn't apply as much. Also getting around authoritarian government blocks.

    It is a small piece of the puzzle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Pretty sure even a VPN does nothing if you're on a cellphone as well isn't it?

    Like all cellphones carry a unique identifier, that's how, say, reddit can keep you banned even if you start a new account under new email and a vpn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think Reddit would have that. They likely just use your browser fingerprint. Check this out: https://amiunique.org/fingerprint

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Well I'm not sure how else they keep you banned. I was fine on my desktop under a new account and email but even with a VPN and fresh accounts it banned me, sometimes within seconds on my cell phone. Got a new phone like a year later and could get an account (obv)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    I just paid $80 for one year of proton. 2 years ago I paid $40 for 2 years.

    Use information however you will.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    honestly if they have to move countries due to the bill its like the best advertisement ever.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    They sure try to advertise on that but they are a Swiss company so Canadian laws have little to do with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think their biggest impact will be they'll have to pull their Canadian servers and stop selling to Canadians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    thats what I mean. If they actually do that it really shows they mean business (I know an ironic turn of phrase in this instance) when it comes to their policies. I get a little doubtful about vpns but if they leave the canadian market do to this law it would show they stand by what they say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    so proton is now a movement.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Also they scammed their way (liberals) to a majority by absorbing resigning NDP members and THEN they pushed this bullshit. They're anti democratic and aligned with the pedo elite in reducing our lives to nothing since 2020. Cant wait for the revolution to start and ill be among those hanging these bastards by the neck. Idgaf about a list, hi SCRS agent.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Ah yes, Proton, infamous for being the knee and ratting out activists to the authorities, pretends it has any semblance of a spine left.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    every single one of those cases was the activist fucking up basic opsec not proton. They are open about the metadata stored and that they can be forced to comply by court order.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Meanwhile on Proton'a homepage:

    We are a neutral and safe haven for your personal data, committed to defending your freedom.

    Our technology and business are based upon this fundamentally stronger definition of privacy, backed also by Swiss privacy laws.

    Proton is based in Switzerland, and your data does not go to the cloud. Instead, it stays under the protection of some of the world’s strongest privacy laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Some Proton Employee really contacted me here on lemmy to basically say that Proton could never do anything malicious, because they are owned by a non profit. Then how the heck can OpenAI be this scummy when they are also owned by a non profit? (See my Comment History)
    Protons PR Team is so scummy. They spread misinformation about themselves in public forums and pay Content Creators to say incorrect things about online privacy to sell products to customers that don't need those products.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    They’ll say anything just to distract their users away from them being caught red handed in the act of giving away their data to the governments all around the world.

    Classic business marketing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I kinda want to read more into it before I move all my services from Proton, do you have some links?

    And do you have an alternative I can use?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    https://cyberinsider.com/protonmail-logs-users/

    https://www.404media.co/proton-mail-helped-fbi-unmask-anonymous-stop-cop-city-protestor/

    https://cyberinsider.com/protonmail-discloses-user-data-leading-to-arrest-in-spain/

    https://theintercept.com/2025/09/12/proton-mail-journalist-accounts-suspended/

    I’ve been following this on X/Twitter and I think one of the most egregious things that’s important to point out is that folks from Phrack reached out to Proton in private multiple times, and Proton ghosted them. Proton only engaged with them and then reinstated the accounts after Phrack went public and their X/Twitter post went viral.

    It also looks like one of the writers filed an appeal with Proton and Proton denied the appeal, so they manually investigated the incident and refused to reinstate the account and then only did after this got attention on X/Twitter.

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227316

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›