this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
92 points (93.4% liked)

Privacy

49645 readers
307 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

It really depends on whether you care or not about State Surveillance.

If you don't and only really care about general privacy and things like not getting letters from lawyers demanding money because you torrented something, then any no-logs VPN will do:

  • For starters just having a VPN means it's not just a case of a lawyer claiming to represent a copyright owner demanding from a local ISP the identification of the user of a specific IP at a specific time (which many countries have made laws to facilitate, so they don't even need a court order) so now they probably need a court order
  • Then if the VPN is in a different legal jurisdiction said court order needs to be from a court there, not where you are. Even if said lawyer are there and get that court order, they still need the ISP in a different country to give them the information of the user whose IP is in the VPN logs, so that's a lot more complex.
  • Then if the VPN has no-logs, they can't even get the user IP address because it's nowhere to be found. They would need a court order to install what's basically wiretapping equipment or software in that VPN in order to catch a user whilst they're actually using that connection to torrent some file or other. No court is going to be issuing a wiretapping order for a VPN provider to catch a non-commercial case of copyright violation.

If, however, you care about State Surveillance, then merely a no-logs VPN isn't necessarily safe anymore. You see several countries, such as the US and UK, have special surveillance courts (such as FISA courts in the US) which can issue court orders to facilitate data access for mass surveillance WHICH THE RECIPIENTS CANNOT PUBLICLY ADMIT THEY'RE UNDER. In other words, the wiretapping equipment/software to allow bulk tracking of what users are doing might already be installed at the no-logs VPN (and they cannot tell you about it otherwise they'll literally end up in jail) so it's not in fact no-logs because the likes of the NSA is actually logging it all. Any VPN hosted in such legal jurisdictions can be the target of it, any company registered in such legal jurisdictions can be the target of it and it doesn't matter how honest and pro-privacy the people in those companies are - I vaguely remember the case of a secure e-mail provider in the US (forgot the name now), who tried to fight one such court order and ultimately the only way they found to do so was to close down the service and their company.

So if you VPN company is for example registered in Gibraltar (which is a British jurisdiction) or the US and they're still operating, they're very likely compromised and even if they're not, they can silently be compromise at any time.

If you care about avoiding mass surveillance from actual governments, then beyond the usual autocratic nations you'll want to avoid VPN exit points in and VPN providers based in or registered in at the very least the US, UK and Israel and any of the regions under their jurisdiction (for example Gibraltar and the Channel Islands for Britain, Puerto Rico for the US), probably more broadly all the 5-Eyes nations (so, the first 2 plus Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

So check were that "wonderful no-logs VPN" company is registered and were is based and avoid those in countries with insane civil society surveillance legislation like the Patriot Act and even avoid exit nodes of other VPN companies in such countries.

[–] edwinbent@feddit.uk 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Gibraltar (which is a British jurisdiction)

Do you happen to have more info on that? Which UK government agencies would need to have jurisdiction over their Gibraltar counterparts for this to work?

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The English Law Act 1962 stipulates that English common law will apply to Gibraltar unless overridden by Gibraltar law. This means that amongst others the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as well as earlier and later laws around surveillance, apply in Gibraltar by default.

I supposed one would need to find legal counsel in Gibraltar to determine if Gibraltar has passed laws that nullify English laws on surveillance powers, and until proven that Gibraltar has passed said laws the most logical expectation to have is that the same surveillance laws that apply in Great Britain also apply in Gibraltar because everything thing passed in Britain also applies by default in Gibraltar.

[–] edwinbent@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago

Got it! I also found this IVPN blog post back from 2016 (keeping in mind that it's old and may be biased) and this recent Privacy Guides forum thread for further reading.

I have to say: all legal area is a grey area if you legal hard enough, but British Territories are on another level. I feel like I'm changing their legal system by observing it.

[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

It was Lavabit. The interview witht the founder about that whole fiasco is legendary I'll try to find and link it