PIA as conduit for crime

I figured I'd pitch this for discussion.  I know that this will probably fall on deaf ears and I'm in the minority in this forum, but I am really interested in engaging in some thoughtful conversation here.

I fully understand the desire and need for internet privacy.  How do we provide that and still hold criminals accountable for their behavior?

Now, when I say "criminal behavior" I am sure most of you are going to assume I mean torrents.  I'm talking about more serious activity...

I know from good authority that PIA is frequently used by people who engage in creating and distributing child pornography.  Its used by people who engage in domestic terrorism.  It's used by people who scam and defraud the elderly and those involved in human trafficking.  PIA is used by teenagers to paralyze communities by calling in loads of false bomb threats to public places.

I fully get that governments is overreaching with NSA surveillance.  But services like PIA cripple the governments function of protecting our citizens when they have a legitimate reason to infringe on our right to privacy.   Our constitution guarantees us freedom from unreasonable searches.  How do we develop a system where reasonable searches are possible?

As it stands now, if a government agency serves PIA with a valid legal process based on probable cause from criminal activity, they get no response from PIA because no records are maintained.  Is this ethical?


"When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else."
«1

Comments

  • That's easy. PIA answers subpoenas and other legal requestions with this " We have no information or logs to provide".

     Does that mean a criminal could potentially use pia? yes. however pia will never sacrifice user privacy. pia is committed to privacy and anonymity so if that means a criminal might use pia,so be it.

    pia gives a response to all legal subpoenas . they tell them " we have no information or logs to provide"

  • I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom and privacy in order to catch a criminal. I see where the OP is trying to go with his post.

     the same kind of people use terrorism and child porn as excuses as to why people shouldn't have any privacy

  • I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom and privacy in order to catch a criminal. I see where the OP is trying to go with his post.

     the same kind of people use terrorism and child porn as excuses as to why people shouldn't have any privacy

    Agreed.
  • edited July 2015
    It's a question of values and priorities.  Most standard, traditional, corporate-approved discourse on this topic is premised with a certain value system and basically double-dog dares people to challenge the value system upon which everything else is based.

    You, (the OP) is a classic example of this.  Did it ever occur to you that that you AREN'T a "minority" but instead you believe and behave as if you represent the majority of supposedly "law abiding" people that live by a superior and universal value system and lists "domestic terrorism" and "child pornography" as being the worst things ever, and all individual freedoms must be sacrificed to an all-powerful and world-wide surveillance state in order to "protect" "us" from this horrors.

    My opinion:  You value system is pure bullshit and you don't believe a fucking word of it.  Child porn and terrorism are the bullshit side-issues that stupid people like you force everyone else to be preoccupied with while real issues and real threats are being ignored and (worse) are deliberately being made worse.  There's nothing anyone can do, ever, about child porn, and malware technology has advanced to the point that a skilled operator can plant child porn on ANYONE'S computer an ruin them for life.  We're all supposed to run around like our hair was on fire anytime some dumbass with a retarded idea on how to provide the state with even more power, and anyone that disagrees with said dumbass (and his retarded idea) must be some kind of pedophile.

    Because their retarded pea-brains are not capable of seeing the situation from an individual vs. government rights perspective.  Retards understand things like beer, pot, pussy, puppies, kittens and child porn is bad.  Simple minded retards seize on a hot-button and emotional issue and suddenly everyone forgets that we're all being governed by the retard.

    Me?  My value system?  I'd rather cut the retards throat, and prostitute the child out on the sidewalk, naked, than to allow the retarded to have any power over me.  We should implement mandatory sterilization for anyone with an IQ of under "xx", and refuse to allow anyone with an IQ below "xxx" from voting or participating in any democratic process.

    Terrorism?  Who gives a shit.  If some Muslims (because it's always muslims) want to kill people, so what?  They're going to kill someone, somewhere anyways.  The question is do you want to live under a totalitarian tyranny and governed by the retarded while you are expected to cower in terror because some grubby sand nigger from the other side of the planet might kill some people, somewhere, somehow, some time, yelling Allah Fucking Akbar before he blows himself up?  The chances of anything like that happening to me, you or anyone else any of us actually knows is extremely fucking low, and anyone that thinks, feels or says otherwise is a retard, and anyone that agrees to allow that retard to have power over them is also a retard.

    And that is how we come to our current condition, which is a world-wide surveillance infrastructure, that has as it's primary purpose for existence to gather as much information as possible on any decision-makers in order to use that information in order to influence a democratic process to maintain the current political status quo.  Look at what happens when Donald Trump tells the truth about the crime that is being exported into the United States from Mexico.  Had anyone else said that (the truth), they would have been ruined politically.  Every naked picture, every cheated income tax return, every extramarital affair would have been delivered to the most effective place possible by the operatives of the National Security Agency.  NO ONE stands against the state now.  They know EVERYTHING, and everyone is guilty of something.  And if they're not, somehow they will discover the existence of child porn on their computer.
  • Vladimar sounds a whole lot like Walloper, who probably sounded a whole lot like whichever pseudonym he/she used before that ( in est,  five paragraph rambling rants where everyone is referred to as a retard, and diatribes filled with vulgar references )...can't you make these inane commentaries in a paragraph or less, or better yet, be gone from this forum
  • edited July 2015
    I figured I'd pitch this for discussion.  I know that this will probably fall on deaf ears and I'm in the minority in this forum, but I am really interested in engaging in some thoughtful conversation here.

    I fully understand the desire and need for internet privacy.  How do we provide that and still hold criminals accountable for their behavior?

    Now, when I say "criminal behavior" I am sure most of you are going to assume I mean torrents.  I'm talking about more serious activity...

    I know from good authority that PIA is frequently used by people who engage in creating and distributing child pornography.  Its used by people who engage in domestic terrorism.  It's used by people who scam and defraud the elderly and those involved in human trafficking.  PIA is used by teenagers to paralyze communities by calling in loads of false bomb threats to public places.

    I fully get that governments is overreaching with NSA surveillance.  But services like PIA cripple the governments function of protecting our citizens when they have a legitimate reason to infringe on our right to privacy.   Our constitution guarantees us freedom from unreasonable searches.  How do we develop a system where reasonable searches are possible?

    As it stands now, if a government agency serves PIA with a valid legal process based on probable cause from criminal activity, they get no response from PIA because no records are maintained.  Is this ethical?


    "When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else"                                                                                                                                                 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/tor-attacks-nsa-users-online-anonymity I'm 100% pro privacy, but your concerns are valid...this article I'm sure frightens the crap out of some privacy advocates, but it does address your questions, is a necessary evil ( I feel unfortunately ), and I myself really don't feel it's targeting the average VPN-Tor user, although some will disagree I'm sure...it seems to be targeting the worst of the worst

  • edited July 2015
    @Irryie
    Would Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply since it was signed in "good faith" by the United States and most of the rest of the world back on December 10th, 1948?

    "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
    privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
    honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the
    law against such interference or attacks"
    https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
  • This is the same argument that David Cameron and James Comey use to ban encryption. Fear.
  • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

    Do you notice the difference? You demonstrate you are using a mobile device by posting that.
  • @robert_lazar

    I know it’s easy for PIA to answer they don’t keep logs; the
    question I pose is: “Is that right?”

     I understand that you are not willing to sacrifice your
    freedom and privacy to catch a criminal. 
    I am not posing that you do.  Nor
    am I using terrorism and child porn as excuses for people not to have any
    privacy.  I’m asking, do we want to live
    in a world where everyone has complete privacy without exception.  I think that is what PIA is advocating.

     I think it’s easy for us to say things like “..a criminal
    might use pia, so be it” until you are a victim of a crime.  I suspect that if you or a loved one fell
    victim to a crime where the criminal used this service and the government was
    telling you there was nothing they could do, you might feel differently.

     Listen, I don’t believe the government is to be completely
    trusted.  They have done way more than
    their fair share of illegal, immoral and unethical things.  I think it is our duty to keep the government
    in check.  I personally don’t want to
    live in a country where criminals are allowed to thrive because, “Hey, I’m now
    able to browse the internet without the NSA knowing who I am.”  No do I want to live in a country where
    everything I am doing is subject to being monitored and recorded. 

    I’m advocating a system where we can use services like PIA
    to maintain anonymity, but can still protect each other from those taking
    advantage of us.



    @moshbeast

    Thanks for the link. 
    I think what the NSA is doing is abhorrent and inexcusable.  The branches of government were set up for
    checks and balances to avoid this sort of thing.  If the NSA or any executive agency wants to infringe
    on someone’s privacy, they needs to be a violation of established criminal law
    and the facts need to be presented to a judge with competent jurisdiction. 

    I think incidents like these are directly linked to the
    creation of software such as PIA.  When
    we don’t trust the government, we swing to the complete opposite end of the
    spectrum and demand complete and total privacy.

    I’m arguing that our Constitution does not give us complete
    freedom and privacy.  There are
    exceptions.

    I think if we demand complete privacy and anonymity, we allow
    criminals a safe haven.   Most of the people using this service are
    probably good-natured law abiding citizens. 
    Their privacy deserves protection. 
    I don’t think we need to extend that blanket to everyone.

  • @robert_lazar

    I know it’s easy for PIA to answer they don’t keep logs; the
    question I pose is: “Is that right?”

     I understand that you are not willing to sacrifice your
    freedom and privacy to catch a criminal. 
    I am not posing that you do.  Nor
    am I using terrorism and child porn as excuses for people not to have any
    privacy.  I’m asking, do we want to live
    in a world where everyone has complete privacy without exception.  I think that is what PIA is advocating.

     I think it’s easy for us to say things like “..a criminal
    might use pia, so be it” until you are a victim of a crime.  I suspect that if you or a loved one fell
    victim to a crime where the criminal used this service and the government was
    telling you there was nothing they could do, you might feel differently.

     Listen, I don’t believe the government is to be completely
    trusted.  They have done way more than
    their fair share of illegal, immoral and unethical things.  I think it is our duty to keep the government
    in check.  I personally don’t want to
    live in a country where criminals are allowed to thrive because, “Hey, I’m now
    able to browse the internet without the NSA knowing who I am.”  No do I want to live in a country where
    everything I am doing is subject to being monitored and recorded. 

    I’m advocating a system where we can use services like PIA
    to maintain anonymity, but can still protect each other from those taking
    advantage of us.



    @moshbeast

    Thanks for the link. 
    I think what the NSA is doing is abhorrent and inexcusable.  The branches of government were set up for
    checks and balances to avoid this sort of thing.  If the NSA or any executive agency wants to infringe
    on someone’s privacy, they needs to be a violation of established criminal law
    and the facts need to be presented to a judge with competent jurisdiction. 

    I think incidents like these are directly linked to the
    creation of software such as PIA.  When
    we don’t trust the government, we swing to the complete opposite end of the
    spectrum and demand complete and total privacy.

    I’m arguing that our Constitution does not give us complete
    freedom and privacy.  There are
    exceptions.

    I think if we demand complete privacy and anonymity, we allow
    criminals a safe haven.   Most of the people using this service are
    probably good-natured law abiding citizens. 
    Their privacy deserves protection. 
    I don’t think we need to extend that blanket to everyone.

    Its right for pia to say they have no information to provice. usa law allows that. I am not willing to sacrifice privacy to catch a criminal. your argument is dead
  • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

    Do you notice the difference? You demonstrate you are using a mobile device by posting that.

    LoL :) ya caught that huh :)

    people give away little clues about their internet activity every day, then they grip about privacy on the internet when its them giving it away in the most simple things.
    Yeah. I seek to be as ambiguous as possible with regard to the Internet as a whole.
  • edited July 2015
    BC01...you say what the government is doing is abhorrent and inexcusable ...I say if we take away the ability for them to backdoor into and around encryption to catch the worst offenders, then we are going to be left in a world where VPNs are forced to log I'm afraid ...I"d rather let them try sneaky backhanded stuff or even (gasp!) use the law to catch criminals then have my history withheld for say, six months for anyone to purvey ( like the ISP's do now )...hate me if you will....the type of system you are proposing, quite frankly IMHO, is unobtainable...and as Robert Lazar said above, your argument is dead...sorry
  • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

    Do you notice the difference? You demonstrate you are using a mobile device by posting that.

    LoL :) ya caught that huh :)

    people give away little clues about their internet activity every day, then they grip about privacy on the internet when its them giving it away in the most simple things.
    Yet you have no way of knowing whether I added that cue intentionally or not, just like I have no way of knowing if Omni posted the link from his home PC, I just assume he did.

    Anyways my understanding of g v. c. is that the SC recognized the Fourteenth Amendment as providing a substantive due process right to privacy from the state.
  • I understand what he is saying I.just don't agree with it. He is saying that because criminal might use pia pia should log and hand over user info. Using excuses like terrorism and child porn to crack down on liberty and privacy is wrong
  • pia will do what they have always done..they legally answers subpoenas..by law they can't ignore one. All they do is say we have no information to share.
  • I understand what he is saying I.just don't agree with it. He is saying that because criminal might use pia pia should log and hand over user info. Using excuses like terrorism and child porn to crack down on liberty and privacy is wrong
    The same old argument, you can't ban encryption.
  • I understand what he is saying I.just don't agree with it. He is saying that because criminal might use pia pia should log and hand over user info. Using excuses like terrorism and child porn to crack down on liberty and privacy is wrong
    The same old argument, you can't ban encryption.
    China. 'Nuff said.
  • pia has received suboenas before I assume because a crime took place. The criminals were able to not get caught because pia had no information to hand over. pia holds user privacy above all else. The criminals should be held responsible but in the case of pia they can't be held responsible because pia has no.information to hand.over. that's just the price to.pay for us regular users to enjoy our privacy and anonymity. I am.not willing to give up privacy in order to.hold a criminal respomsible. As the American patriot Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death.
  • I don't care what the crime was that was committed. I am not giving up my privacy for security. I am not a criminal and neither are most pia users. Just because a criminal might use pia is no excuse to log and hand over information.
  • How does the OP "know from good authority" that PIA is being used for the specific criminal purposes he/she lists?  I smell a troll.
  • Could be a troll, or,someone sent froma  rival vpn,or reddit to start trouble and create doubt about pia. We cant be for sure. Anything is possible.

     I think it is safe to assume that all vpns have been and will continue to occasionally be used by criminals. In the case of pia, if a criminal uses pia to do a crime then the crime has already been committed and the crime's effects already felt. At that point theres nothing pia can do about the crime or its effects because pia has no information "logs" to hand over. With the crime already having occured by the time pia gets a subpoena theres nothing pia can do,for two reasons 1 : the crime and its effects already done/felt. 2: pia has nothing to hand over regarding user information.

      In a way the OP's point is dead because theres nothing pia can do about it.

  • How does the OP "know from good authority" that PIA is being used for the specific criminal purposes he/she lists?  I smell a troll.
    I use PIA to illegally download and upload copyright material, as do you and everyone else here.  I smell a retard, incapable of putting his own conduct and behaviors into his own moral framework.
  • edited July 2015
    I agree with Robert Lazar and Vladimar that this is a bogus reason to ban VPN services like PIA. If a person were to rob a store with a bat tomorrow would we regulate the sale and use of bats. You have a one size fits all answer and this is the reason why we are losing so much of our freedoms here in America. Here is another perspective that the original poster is forgetting, people commit crimes with tor, people commit crimes with the regular internet and no VPN.
    Many times people who do illegal activity with no VPN'S online get away with crimes. Nothing is full proof and to go all crazy and ban VPN'S is the wrong approach. The key to losing our freedoms and privacy is to have it taken away little by little. As an example, censor someone from making jokes about another race, then the next step make it a crime. I am not advocating to make jokes about other races, people will be rude and ignorant and still do dumb things. The fact of the matter is that there is a healthy balance between enforcing laws and then overreaching laws. You opt for an overreaching approach. This approach will go beyond banning vpns, it will ban proxy servers, firewalls, probably even ad-blockers. It starts off with one thing and almost always snowballs into something more.
    Furthermore when you ban everything it stifles creativity. There will be no more people who will make innovative products to make the internet more private or to catch criminals because people will be afraid to develop something that is going to get them in trouble. This is why the government and the senate have its lowest approval ratings ever. They take an issue and use fear porn and punish the masses for the crimes of the few. Most people world-wide are law abiding, good people, it makes no sense to ban a vpn because a few people are perverts or some so called terrorist. In this day and age everyone is a terrorist according to the government. We wouldn't know that we were being spied on if it wasn't for whistle blowers like Edward Snowden. He used secure communications to safe guard his information. If we ban vpn's then how will people who live in oppressive countries reach out to others for help if they dont have a means like a vpn to do it. A vpn can be used for good as well as bad and you choose to only focus on the negative. So i pose the same response that banning a vpn service for illegal misdeeds, people who are the minority, to punish the law-abiding, who are the majority is stupid and oppressive.
    You might want to live in a police state society where we all spy on each other and rat people out who don't conform but i don't. We already had this happen in our history during WW2.  Germans citizen spied on other citizen and in their ignorance lead many innocent people to concentration camps.  History repeats itself and banning  vpn providers is a slippery slope.  We will lose our freedom completely when we eliminate all forms of privacy and it will eventually leave us with no privacy at all.
  • edited July 2015
    I know bc01 didn't mention banning vpn's, but like i said in my original response the government will go overboard and say too many crimes are being committed and we need to ban vpn providers.  It usually goes in this manner.  Just to hopefully solidify my initial response, we had the NSA spying and monitoring all cell phone calls, emails and God knows what else, so how come they didn't stop the underwear bomber, the Boston marathon bombings, and other acts of terror.  I chose PIA because of their strong stance on privacy, as a previous commentator said any skilled hacker can put a worm, or virus on ones computer and have it have child porn or even have someone fake that you are a terrorist supporter.   Keep in mind that identity theft is one of the biggest crimes in our modern world.  Someone could easily steal your identity and they don't need your IP address to do it.  Medical records, places you shop anywhere where your sensitive information is out there could be used.  I do not advocate for any crimes what so ever, but my privacy is important and the more of our privacy, security and freedoms the government sees we are willing to give up the more the gov't will do so.
  • edited July 2015
    Let's be honest and realistic here; PIA is a service which gives users anonymity and protection against those who wish to tap into their every communication. It may so be the case that there are criminals who are using this service to commit a crime (be it torrent downloading, Child Pornography etc). Now, it is possible for these crimes to also take place without the Internet. If someone wanted to murder your family, the Internet doesn't even have to be used. Someone can scope out a place using Google Maps with or without the VPN, so that argument is null and void.

    The Tor Project which was made by the US Navel Research Lab offers a layer of anonymity even without a VPN. And the same such crimes can also be facilitated by downloading and using this software. I assume there is a link to such a thread advocating that the Tor Project be shut down instantly due to the ability for such acts to be carried out? If not, why not? Same thing.

    Criminals will use any systems they can, and ensuring the ability for people to communicate freely without their data being intercepted is vital for allowing people the right to a private life, online or offline. 
  • pia has received suboenas before I assume because a crime took place. The criminals were able to not get caught because pia had no information to hand over. pia holds user privacy above all else. The criminals should be held responsible but in the case of pia they can't be held responsible because pia has no.information to hand.over. that's just the price to.pay for us regular users to enjoy our privacy and anonymity. I am.not willing to give up privacy in order to.hold a criminal respomsible. As the American patriot Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death.
    What if an 'entity' were planning, and were going to truly commit the crime, to kill you or your family and used the VPN to execute that planning? Is their privacy in the specific (the who, what, when, where) more important than you family's life or your life?

    So you are saying that knowing who these people are and the information that would be gained by breaching their VPN privacy, to stop them to save your family's life or your life, should not be gathered and your family or you should just be murdered? So their privacy takes a priority over your family's life or your life?

    He is not talking about breaching your privacy, he is talking about the privacy of those who would truly commit serious crime. He is not saying that you would give up your privacy and security, or that it would be taken from you in some way.

    This is the type of thing BC01 was talking about, he just did not say it very well but it was there. His point was never dead.

    Stop being so confirmation biased paranoid.

    Ya know people always like to quote things in such discussion like you did, without understanding them, like you did not understand what Patrick Henry said with your selective use of part of the actual quote. That liberty is also for others, not just you, those who would suffer the serious crimes of others, so what about their liberty? That 'liberty' you want to invoke only works when it is enjoyed by everyone, it was never intended to be selectively applied as a means of exploit to cause harm to others. In context, the inherent and absolute human right to the liberty to be free from others intending to harm. To be free from such is an inherent and absolute human right all are born with. For those who would do such to remain hidden (in today's language in context) under a cloak of 'privacy' via VPN so as to avoid being held accountable for, or stopped from, inflicting that harm is in its self depriving liberty to others even you.

    Patrick Henry said that, what is now a quote, during a speech he gave at the Virginia Convention (before the Virginia House of Burgesses at St. John's Church) in March 1775. He was trying to organize a Virgina militia to go to war and needed the backing of the 'convention' by adopting his proposal. The 'convention' was debating how to resolve the crisis with Great Britain - through force or through peaceful ends. You took its application out of context. Actually what Patrick Henry said at that convention, and pertaining to the quote its self from his speech, was this; "Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!".

    The quote was part of his speech about being free from the tyranny of England, and Patrick Henry was advocating force as that necessary, that we should go to war, to free us from that tyranny.

    So, since you want to use that quote, even if incorrectly, lets use that for the sake of discussion; So you advocate that one should be permitted to exercise a tyrannical deprivation of the liberty of others by them being able to use the cloak of privacy on the VPN to truly carry out serious crimes. You want to quote something from the revolutionary war period as some form of personal justification support for that to happen, when the revolutionary war was also about preventing the very thing you advocate and what Patrick Henry was talking about was to use that necessary to stop those who would deprive us of liberty - and in context with your post (quoted) and this part of the discussion to use that necessary to stop those who would truly commit serious crime which does imposes a tyranny on society and that necessary to stop such may very well need to be breaching the privacy on VPN of those who would do such.  

    I'm sure your family would be happy to know that you value the VPN privacy of those who would kill them, and would actually want those who would do such to deprive them of their liberty and not be stopped or held accountable.

    Your reasoning is selfish and self-centered, unjustified, your point is moot and self-negating. He was not advocating that your privacy or security would be breached or removed from you, only those who would truly commit serious crime. One may have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as enshrined is the preamble to our Declaration of Independence adopted July 4th 1776), but they do not have a right to intentionally infringe upon others rights or to remove that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for others, no where does it say that such right exist, and the same is true in relation to 'privacy'. No one has a right to use privacy as a cloak or protection against being held accountable for their crimes, no where does it say one has such a right, it does not exist and never has in all the history of the human race.

    Don't use PIA not being able to give any information as an excuse for your personal justification. PIA chooses to not keep logs and information on users and it is not required by law. However, that does not mean it can not be done by PIA or for any VPN service because it can be done. I know this is going to be really confusing for you - but as much as PIA is all for privacy it exists on the PIA VPN in substance reality on the VPN because PIA chooses not to log and not that its an inherent right granting to such privacy on the VPN, and its the same with any VPN service. No one is advocating that PIA should log all users activity, only that those who would actually commit serious crime that would endanger the health and safety of others should not be permitted to hide behind a cloak of VPN provided 'privacy' and that they should be exposed and stripped of that capability of 'VPN provided privacy' by a VPN provider when necessary and the correct thing to do.  

    I'm all for privacy, but privacy is not, and was never intended, to be used as a tool of exploitation to keep those who would commit crimes (like i've been talking about) from being held accountable and stopped. To allow privacy to be used as such for such is in its self a deprivation of liberty and a threat to the safety and security of others, even yours.

    Trivia note: Did you know that Patrick Henry actually opposed, and fought against, adoption of the Constitution. That same Constitution which did not include a right to privacy, and later in the Bill Of Rights (ratified by the States December 15, 1791) amendments still did not include a right to privacy in substance. It is only through interpretation application later by the U.S. Supreme Court that a "right to privacy" actually came into being in substance and applied constitutionally. A "right to privacy" was never envisioned in substance by our countries forefathers, maybe some of them thought something like that but it never appeared in substance from them via the Constitution or later in the Bill of Rights. Our right to privacy is a granted right by interpretation, it is not an 'absolute' right. It is subject to interpretation for application specifics by courts, and ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court, and a right to privacy has never been permitted by a court to be used as a means to allow those who would commit an actual serious crime to remain safe from privacy information disclosure in the specifics pertaining to that crime.

    Note, for sake of completeness: One can read the famous Patrick Henry speech which included that quote many places on the internet, for example, here > http://www.nationalcenter.org/GiveMeLiberty.html 



    If an entity were planning to kill me and they were using a vpn to hide then that's just the way it is. If the vpn had no information to share,so be it. Id rather take my chances with terrorism than give up my liberty. And if a terrorist was using a vpn to plan my death more than likely I'd already be dead . The only way to catch the criminal is to catch them before they commit the crime. The vpn would have to be wiretapped and monitored in real time. Pia would never allow that to happen. And since they also have no logs or information theres nothing they could do after "my murder" anyway.

       lrryie yes I am paranoid and fearful. that comes with schizophrenia. I do my best to control it. but sometimes being fearful is good.

     Im just not willing to give up my liberty for the sake of "catching" a criminal no matter the crime. Please don't take offense,,im not trying to fight. We just have different viewpoints.

  • lrryie should sign up with proxy.sh, they have an "ethical policy."
  • As long as the law in the usa permits pia to keep no user information then that's just the price we have to pay for not being able to catch terrorists/criminals.

     To catch a terrorist in that manner, you would have to be monitoring in real time,,which means that pia's system would have to be wiretapped and keys handed over. pia would never permit that. Even if pia had logs to hand over that wouldn't help much because more than likely the terrorist/criminal would already have committed their crime.

       Ethics is one thing, privacy is another. For regular users like us to have our privacy that means that more than likely a criminal will be able to get away with some things.

Sign In or Register to comment.