51–60 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His second sentence is "There's no legitimate use for someone who isn't trying to break the law." I'm not trying to break the law, I use it for my corporate usage, therefore it is legitimate use. What are you trying to say?
> What are you trying to say? Pretty sure they meant “second paragraph” instead of “second sentence”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VPN is what a smart person uses when they are at an internet cafe or somewhere else with public internet where you can’t trust that the traffic isn’t sniffed by someone for giggles and your bank credentials are going to leak.
thats why we have https and certs. VPN is redundant
I don't connect to internet without VPN nowdays. Too much tracking today.
Why is something like ublock origin not enough for your needs? Is it more about the principle of not wanting to share any fingerprint across the Internet, or some specific tracking concern?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably should have put a `>` before the first paragraph, because it reads like an 8/8 bait and most people won't continue to the next one. Regarding the misleading podcast claims, at least all the podcast and youtube ads made the VPNs popular on the mass market so now they are more difficult to be silently outlawed.
Putting a '>' would make it look like it's a quote from the article, which it isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that" Meaning the poster finds it surprising that intelligent site operators would honestly think that.
Or saying that his view is also shared by people he considers intelligent, and thus can only be rejected by others, who first need to proof to him, that they are actually intelligent. Aka. an indirect ad hominem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thats why we have https and certs. VPN is redundant
Redundancy is not detrimental to security and privacy. On the contrary, having more layers would protect you in case one of them fails (zero-day, bugs, etc.)
Like, suppose I want to send a physical letter to my bank. I can either ensure it can't be opened (using TLS), or I can get a trusted mailman to bring it to the mail central (using a VPN or trused ISP), but only one of those measures are going to protect me against a malicious mailman carrying it from the mail central to the bank.
VPNs are just tools that sketchy people use for sketchy means. There's no legitimate use for someone who isn't trying to break the law. Allowing these tools let's underage people access porn, and do all manner of undesirable behaviors like accessing region locked content. I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that, including site operators who run nontrivial websites. There are of co…
https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/gadgets-tech/v...