PIA, looks like you were not turthful in the announcement - request for info

edited October 15 in General Privacy Discussion Posts: 62
1. PIA has publicly stated support of free speech yet they suppress such by closing this thread > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/25531/is-the-latest-announcement-private-internet-access-does-not-log-a-response-to-the-purevpn-fiasco/p2

2. It looks like PIA doesn't like their falsehood about logging being bought forth and closed the thread to suppress discussion about it  > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/comment/51002/#Comment_51002

I pretty much indicated PIA would do this to suppress the issue and to keep from supplying a suitable answer and even nailed the PIA fan boy who would be involved as well.

There is still an answer needed:

The announcement at > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/25521/private-internet-access-does-not-log < states:

"In light of recent news, we would like our clients to rest assured that, as has been proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will. Thank you for helping us fight the good fight. "

The announcement statement as written now is not true.

What is PIA afraid of in substantiating their claim as currently written in the announcement? Is it bacause PIA can't substantiate that claim and its untrue? If PIA is so afraid to simply correct the announcement then why? Instead of simply changing one word in their announcement to make it true they continue to support the falsehood and in addition they suppress free speech discussion about it and fail to suitably respond with the proof, just like I indicated in they would do in the now closed thread. Not only is the announcement false, but the statements from PIA about allowing free speech here is also false now it seems simply because they do not like the false hood being bought forth.

> "as presented in US court" > is what actually happened, and would have been truthful, accurate, conveyed the same message, and matched the "sentiment" Max-P and PIAJayson conveyed.

I could have lived with that ("presented") and not said a word about it, but "proven in US court" is a lie. If there was no evidence proof that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." which was provided in US court and the case was not about PIA then its impossible for it to have been "proven in US court" < there was no evidence proof provided in US court and the case was not about PIA, thus no court verdict or decision substantiating it to have been "proven" thus it has not been "proven in US court"

(statements in response to subponea is not proof or evidence to have something "proven in US court" - such statement responses are just one of the steps in investigation but are not proof of anything by their self other than that a step in the investigation was conducted. Such statements response to subponea are also used to support the evidence, but such statements are not proof on their own. It takes evidence in court and the case actually being about PIA to have it "proven in US court" that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will."
)

PIA said it - now its time to prove it. PIA, according to your announcement it has been "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." - please give that evidence proof in the forum for PIA customers.

There should be no problem doing that if it exists, and PIA has even indicated in the now closed thread that it does exist yet there is no evidence proof with the court case in which PIA claims it has been "proven in US court" and those court records are a matter of public record so PIA should have no issue with giving that "proven in US court" evidence here publicly as well. Yet, PIA's Max-P stated in the other thread "In all cases I think there is just no way we could ever fully prove that we don't log." but PIAJayson challenged and stated > "By your own definition, you are calling us liars as you believe we are unable to prove what has been said." which indicates they would be able to prove it because I believe they are unable to prove it yet they did not give any proof.

So one PIA employee says it could never be proven, yet another PIA employee indicates it can be proven. Thank goodness this is the United States and PIA is incorporated in the U.S because in the U.S. what company employees say in the course of their duties as employees about official company policy or product legally binds the company to those statements and legally obligates the company to substantiate those statements to its customers.

So again - PIA said it - now its time to prove it. PIA, according to your announcement it has been "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." - please give that evidence proof in the forum for PIA customers.

Without that evidence proof it sure seems as if, or indicates, based upon the announcement, PIA has intentionally lied and involved multiple employees in maintaining that lie so thus conspired to defraud customers.

So people payed for this product, PIA has claimed it has been "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." and would be the only no-logging VPN service in the world or history to be able to prove they do not "not store any type of logs and never will." if the claim is true so they should be able to provide that proof to the product customers.

Note: This post is on topic with the forum in which it is posted as was the other thread. The forum is "General Privacy Discussion". Knowing claimed no-logging information is about privacy. Being able to bring forth inconsistencies or false information about claimed no-logging information is about privacy. I'll bet PIA either closes this thread too or will fail to provide the requested info - this is also about privacy because if one of these happens its an indicator as to the integrity of the company that is claiming to provide that privacy.




Post edited by jbis on

Comments

  • edited October 15 Posts: 18
    OK have a look here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/303226103/Fake-bomb-threat-arrest

    The document basically shows that PIA could not hand over any information on the suspect to the FBI thus means they keep no logs.

    PIA can't lie when a Valid Subpoena is served so the evidence above should be enough to calm most peoples nerves.

    I have used PIA since 2012 and I will vouch that they keep no logs and its not often i trust a company.
    Post edited by mission156 on
  • edited October 15 Posts: 62
    OK have a look here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/303226103/Fake-bomb-threat-arrest

    There is the Official document that PIA does not keep logs as they were not able to hand over any identity information on the suspect as they did not have any.

    I have used PIA for many years now since 2012 and I am still here so I can personally vouch they keep no logs. 

    That's all I will say on it.
    Thanks for your reply. Already been over that though and knew about it.

    However, that's not evidence proof and is simply a response to subponea which by its self is not proof which can be used in court to prove PIA "does not store any type of logs and never will" as it takes evidence of such and not just saying it. There is a big difference between saying it and proving it. If PIA says its been "proven" then they should be able to show that proof.

    If there was no evidence proof that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." which was provided in US court and the case was not about PIA then its impossible for it to have been "proven in US court" < there was no evidence proof provided in US court and the case was not about PIA, thus no court verdict or decision substantiating it to have been "proven" thus it has not been "proven in US court"

    (statements in response to subponea is not proof or evidence to have something "proven in US court" - such statement responses are just one of the steps in investigation but are not proof of anything by their self other than that a step in the investigation was conducted. Such statements response to subponea are also used to support the evidence, but such statements are not proof on their own. It takes evidence in court and the case actually being about PIA to have it "proven in US court" that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will."
    )

    Yet, the announcement clearly states it was "proven in US court" but there is no "proven" substantiated in court record.

    Having been with PIA since 2012, have you ever seen the evidence proof that substantiates it could or can be "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." or have you just been taking their word for it? How can you "personally vouch they keep no logs" - have you seen the proof - or just seen what they have said and thus able to vouch for what they said?

    As a consumer or personally - Aren't you tired of seeing the claims being made about VPN products from the VPN company about no-logging yet the VPN company never proves it and only says it?

    PureVPN did the same thing. Their customers took their word for it, but we know now that PureVPN had been logging all the time despite saying, just as PIA has done, that they did not store any logs.

    OK have a look here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/303226103/Fake-bomb-threat-arrest

    The document basically shows that PIA could not hand over any information on the suspect to the FBI thus means they keep no logs.

    PIA can't lie when a Valid Subpoena is served so the evidence above should be enough to calm most peoples nerves.

    I have used PIA since 2012 and I will vouch that they keep no logs and its not often i trust a company.

    Sure PIA could lie for a subponea, especially if they have so publicly stated their logging policy it would be in their financially vested interest to lie, if they do, for a subponea response so as to not loose customers because unless the case is about them no one is going to verify if they lied or not. Imagine what it would be like if they suddenly on a subponea provided logs after claiming these years they don't log :). They would get away with the lie too because no one is going to check because the case was not about PIA so there would be no legal justification to check and make PIA prove it.

    I'm not saying PIA lied in the subpona response, but it is not evidence proof that substantiates it could or can be "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will."

    The word should have been "presented" as in "as presented in US court" because that is what actually and truthfully happened when the PIA subponea response was given in the court documents. It was "presented" and not "proven"

    Companies lie in subponea responses all the time, either by omission or fact interpretation, if the case is not about them then no one is going to check and make sure its the truth. But one thing they do not do is start saying it was "proven in US court"

    The matter of the subponea response doesn't matter though as that response is still not evidence "proven in US court" that PIA does not store logs. I pointed this out further up in this post.



    Post edited by jbis on
  • There will never be 100% proof we all live in hope that they tell the truth but it really depends on what you are doing behind the VPN and who would come after you.

    I use PIA for P2P and expressing free speech in a country that could quite frankly jail you if they don't like what you are saying so that is my personal experience with them and all I have to go by. 

    Just go with what you are most comfortable with and where you feel safe.
  • edited October 15 Posts: 38
    I'm closing this thread for the reasons stated in the previous thread and also responded to in Private Message when you asked for the thread to be reopened.

    Whilst we welcome free speech, that does not mean we welcome disruptive behaviour.
    For additional information, please see https://xkcd.com/1357/
    Post edited by PIAJayson on
This discussion has been closed.