Shopping for a VPN - company please respond

bopnbobbopnbob
edited November 2017 in General Privacy Discussion
Hi;

If Private Internet Access would reply to this it would be great, that is who I'd like to hear from for this.

Looking for a new VPN, using a friends system with Private Internet Access to try it out and so far seems to work ok. Was looking through the FAQ's and have a question about one of them.

In the FAQ article at https://helpdesk.privateinternetaccess.com/hc/en-us/articles/229347907-Do-You-Have-A-Warrant-Canary- it says

"There are several companies who claim they don’t log, but do anyway at the end of the day. In contrast, we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything, available for anyone to read (pages 11-12):"

I read through the  available pages 11-12 but all I see is:

"subpoena was sent to London Trust Media and the only information they could provide is that the cluster of IP addresses being used was from the east coast of the United States"

but on the FAQ page it says "we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything"

I looked around for the "proof" but all I saw was the response to the subpoena which is not proof that Private Internet Access does not log. I see a bunch of sentiment or claim type statements from Private Internet Access in the forums and other FAQ articles which express that Private Internet Access does not log. But these are just words and considering that the FAQ says there is proof i'd like to see the proof that was presented to the court to prove that Private Internet Access does not log.

Where can I find the proof that Private Internet Access said was in public court records which was presented to the court to prove that Private Internet Access does not log? is there another link or something?

Thanks




Comments

  • OpenVPNOpenVPN
    edited November 2017
    bopnbob said:
    Hi;

    If Private Internet Access would reply to this it would be great, that is who I'd like to hear from for this.

    Looking for a new VPN, using a friends system with Private Internet Access to try it out and so far seems to work ok. Was looking through the FAQ's and have a question about one of them.

    In the FAQ article at https://helpdesk.privateinternetaccess.com/hc/en-us/articles/229347907-Do-You-Have-A-Warrant-Canary- it says

    "There are several companies who claim they don’t log, but do anyway at the end of the day. In contrast, we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything, available for anyone to read (pages 11-12):"

    I read through the  available pages 11-12 but all I see is:

    "subpoena was sent to London Trust Media and the only information they could provide is that the cluster of IP addresses being used was from the east coast of the United States"

    but on the FAQ page it says "we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything"

    I looked around for the "proof" but all I saw was the response to the subpoena which is not proof that Private Internet Access does not log. I see a bunch of sentiment or claim type statements from Private Internet Access in the forums and other FAQ articles which express that Private Internet Access does not log. But these are just words and considering that the FAQ says there is proof i'd like to see the proof that was presented to the court to prove that Private Internet Access does not log.

    Where can I find the proof that Private Internet Access said was in public court records which was presented to the court to prove that Private Internet Access does not log? is there another link or something?

    Thanks




    These documents are the proof. 



    "A subpoena was sent to London Trust Media and the only information they could provide is that the cluster of IP addresses  being used was from the East coast of the United States."  If Private Internet Access kept logs of customer data, they would've been forced to hand over every single megabyte to authorities upon request.
  • bopnbobbopnbob
    edited November 2017
    @OpenVPN

    No that's not "proof".

    proof requires the statements to be validated by fact or truth. For example, if you tell me your name is Joe Robbin I would ask to see your ID to validate your statement. The subpona statements can't be validated with fact or truth, and can only be validated as what they said and nothing more.

    Private Internet Access in their FAQ stated "we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything" that's a bold statement to make so surely they have this proof. So i'm asking to see the proof, it should be public as the court case records are public yet I can not find one thing in the court case records which validate by fact or truth their subpoena statement, and can find nothing that validates their FAQ statement and only find more of what they say with no fact or truth to validate it. Maybe I missed it, but Private Internet Access should be able to show it because surely they have it so i'm asking.  I did not see any link to the proof in the FAQ. is there another link to it that I missed?

    thanks for your reply, but i'd like Private Internet Access or London Trust Media to answer the question. Its going to be them I would be purchasing from, not other forum users.
  • OpenVPNOpenVPN
    edited November 2017
    bopnbob said:
    @OpenVPN

    No that's not "proof".

    proof requires the statements to be validated by fact or truth. For example, if you tell me your name is Joe Robbin I would ask to see your ID to validate your statement. The subpona statements can't be validated with fact or truth, and can only be validated as what they said and nothing more.

    Private Internet Access in their FAQ stated "we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything" that's a bold statement to make so surely they have this proof. So i'm asking to see the proof, it should be public as the court case records are public yet I can not find one thing in the court case records which validate by fact or truth their subpoena statement, and can find nothing that validates their FAQ statement and only find more of what they say with no fact or truth to validate it. Maybe I missed it, but Private Internet Access should be able to show it because surely they have it so i'm asking.  I did not see any link to the proof in the FAQ. is there another link to it that I missed?

    thanks for your reply, but i'd like Private Internet Access or London Trust Media to answer the question. Its going to be them I would be purchasing from, not other forum users.
    Sorry you were not satisfied with my answer but I am only trying to help. I try to help wherever I can. @Max-P or @PIAJayson should be able to answer your questions.
  • PiaVipperPiaVipper
    *YAWN* we;ve been over all this in another thread. Facts are:
    1. PIA claim NOT to log
    2. PIA answered a court subpoena with what you read above (not proof of (1) but as good as you're going to get)
    3. you can either trust them or not.

    Bottom line is you're "safe" unless you are doing something where you deserve to be caught - even then, you might still be safe (unfortunately).
  • PIAJaysonPIAJayson
    Hi @bopnbob,

    We do not log. However, like other users had said, this was a recent topic and in response to that I changed the wording to state that we stated, under threat of perjury, that we replied to the court documents that we do not log.

    I will change the above article to reflect that, in order to help clarify and prevent confusion.
  • bopnbobbopnbob
    edited November 2017
    @PIAJayson

    Thanks for the reply;

    I saw another thread but it seemed Private Internet Access was biased against a person posting about the proof thing and was so confused by others attacking the person that I never could get a real good answer from it as what Private Internet Access was posting in the thread seemed not to be true by defending their announcement post instead of simply changing it. Then when I saw the FAQ it was really confusing considering that the announcement post outlined in that thread was eventually changed and had a link to the FAQ but the same "prove" thing was still in the FAQ. It made it look deceptive.

    Although I appreciate your response, I do not have a really good feeling about Private Internet Access. I've since explored more fully. Judging from the interaction of Private Internet Access employees in these forums, it seems there is a lot of "over enthusiastic" word play and semantics games and some disingenuous statements or sentiment that Private Internet Access employs. Private Internet Access also seems to treat its customers very rudely and disingenuously if they bring up something like that in the thread about the "prove" thing. Customers should not be treated this way, and they should be able to voice their complaints and lack of satisfaction with the product or the company support without being attacked or shut down or forum banned by Private Internet Access.

    I think i'll go with another VPN.

    I wish you well.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited November 2017
    @bopnbob ; This sounds like someone was a bit overzealous in their wording and you're right for bringing this oversight up. I have petitioned to have the wording updated wherever we have access to it to be less confusing.

    The proper word to have used is not "proof", but "evidence", as negatives such as "not logging" are not easily provable outside of a controlled environments with guaranteed honest participants.

    We have public *evidence* that logging is not happening, but you will have to decide on your own if that evidence is sufficient enough to trust PIA in your own OPSEC threat model.


    Negatives


    You can't prove a negative, period. By using PIA (or any VPN), you're trusting the operator with some minimal connection data (even if they can't see what data you're sending).

    Where the statement you're criticizing ("proof PIA doesn't log") went wrong was that it eagerly claims that evidence is proof, instead of just really great evidence. The evidence it was referring to was



    Despite this great and unheard of evidence, it is normally quite safe to assume that all VPN providers are keeping logs for their own reasons, even when they publicly claim otherwise. Since there is no way to prove it, it is a great way to collect data while pretending to be on the side of privacy. The only way to be 100% sure the VPN you're using is not logging you is  to run your own baremetal OpenVPN server. As most people can't or don't want to do that, they pay for a VPN.

    Personally, I have never and will never trust the claims of any VPN service provider that they don't keep logs, even when the public laws support them, because it doesn't fit my OPSEC threat model to give such trust to a third party, period. Does it matter though? Not for me. I don't use VPNs outside of their respective threat model.

    This brings us to the main topic, and a recurring theme in security. Trust.

    People use PIA because they extend that trust based on various rational assessments, similary to how you ride the subway believing it won't crash or store your wealth in your local currency believing it won't crash the very next day and become worthless. There is no such thing as trustless systems, only methods which give more trust to elements that are more difficult to falsifly or corrupt (cryptography, hardware, etc).


    Then how do I trust PIA?


    This is the easy part. PIA kicks ass and supports all the right groups, donates money to all the right movements, has never been caught logging, and has evidence in court that it was unable to respond to the government's requests for logs with the stated reason being -- it had none! Logically, there is no real reason not to trust PIA, except if your personal threat model excludes it (which is fine).

    PIA has never given anyone reason to not trust them with data. Ever. Here is a video from Rick Falkvinge on the topic if you trust him. 


    Here are some articles on the topic as well. 





    You need to decide if you trust PIA or not for your own reasons. I trust my friends, but I would never show them my bitcoin private keys, and yet I would ride in a stranger's taxi trusting to take me from one place to the next safely. Assess your own risks and build your own threat model.

    When using PIA, use it in a way and scope you are willing to trust it with. 





  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    @bopnbob

    > I saw another thread but it seemed Private Internet Access was biased against a person posting about the proof thing

    If it's not too much trouble, could you point me to that thread? There is no excuse for bias and this question is a serious one that needs clarity and neutrality.

    > It made it look deceptive.

    I feel similarly and believe the wording was right to be changed and have petitioned for such anywhere we have the ability to do so.

    > Private Internet Access also seems to treat its customers very rudely and disingenuously if they bring up something like that in the thread about the "prove" thing.

    There is no excuse for that, so if you see it happening let me know. This is a topic that demands neutrality and transparency at all costs (literally!).

    > I think i'll go with another VPN.

    Sorry to see you go, but whatever your decision is, as long as it's based on your own threat model, it is the right decision to make and that's all that matters.

    sn0w

  • bgxsecbgxsec
    edited November 2017
    @bopnbob ; This sounds like someone was a bit overzealous in their wording and you're right for bringing this oversight up. I have petitioned to have the wording updated wherever we have access to it to be less confusing.

    The proper word to have used is not "proof", but "evidence", as negatives such as "not logging" are not easily provable outside of a controlled environments with guaranteed honest participants.

    We have public *evidence* that logging is not happening, but you will have to decide on your own if that evidence is sufficient enough to trust PIA in your own OPSEC threat model.


    Negatives


    You can't prove a negative, period. By using PIA (or any VPN), you're trusting the operator with some minimal connection data (even if they can't see what data you're sending).

    Where the statement you're criticizing ("proof PIA doesn't log") went wrong was that it eagerly claims that evidence is proof, instead of just really great evidence. The evidence it was referring to was



    Despite this great and unheard of evidence, it is normally quite safe to assume that all VPN providers are keeping logs for their own reasons, even when they publicly claim otherwise. Since there is no way to prove it, it is a great way to collect data while pretending to be on the side of privacy. The only way to be 100% sure the VPN you're using is not logging you is  to run your own baremetal OpenVPN server. As most people can't or don't want to do that, they pay for a VPN.

    Personally, I have never and will never trust the claims of any VPN service provider that they don't keep logs, even when the public laws support them, because it doesn't fit my OPSEC threat model to give such trust to a third party, period. Does it matter though? Not for me. I don't use VPNs outside of their respective threat model.

    This brings us to the main topic, and a recurring theme in security. Trust.

    People use PIA because they extend that trust based on various rational assessments, similary to how you ride the subway believing it won't crash or store your wealth in your local currency believing it won't crash the very next day and become worthless. There is no such thing as trustless systems, only methods which give more trust to elements that are more difficult to falsifly or corrupt (cryptography, hardware, etc).


    Then how do I trust PIA?


    This is the easy part. PIA kicks ass and supports all the right groups, donates money to all the right movements, has never been caught logging, and has evidence in court that it was unable to respond to the government's requests for logs with the stated reason being -- it had none! Logically, there is no real reason not to trust PIA, except if your personal threat model excludes it (which is fine).

    PIA has never given anyone reason to not trust them with data. Ever. Here is a video from Rick Falkvinge on the topic if you trust him. 


    Here are some articles on the topic as well. 





    You need to decide if you trust PIA or not for your own reasons. I trust my friends, but I would never show them my bitcoin private keys, and yet I would ride in a stranger's taxi trusting to take me from one place to the next safely. Assess your own risks and build your own threat model.

    When using PIA, use it in a way and scope you are willing to trust it with. 






    Evidence requires proof and is the available body of facts (or information) indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. If there is no proof that the proposition is true or valid then its not evidence. If its just statements then, as that one person posted, it requires the statements to be validated by fact or truth. PIA has already admitted there was no fact or proof to back up the original premise in their information that its been "proven in US court", PIA admitted this by changing the statement. You admit it now. Now you want to make matters worse by saying "We have public *evidence* that logging is not happening" when there was no proof in the first place? This just validates that one posters statement that "there is a lot of "over enthusiastic" word play and semantics games and some disingenuous statements or sentiment that Private Internet Access employs." and your comment was a humdinger example of such and it has nothing to do with an "OPSEC threat model"

    Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic. "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic. "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative, so, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Its not a real thing, and that makes it a disingenuous statement especially when you claim there is "evidence" that does not exist.

    Then you say "PIA kicks ass and supports all the right groups, donates money to all the right movements, has never been caught logging, and has evidence in court that it was unable to respond to the government's requests for logs with the stated reason being -- it had none!" when there is no such evidence, what you had was statements in subpoena and that's it and that is not evidence or proof that you do not have logs.

    Then you say that PIA "has never been caught logging" which directly implies that PIA does log and could be caught logging.

    You have done everything you could in your post to prove that persons statement of "there is a lot of "over enthusiastic" word play and semantics games and some disingenuous statements or sentiment that Private Internet Access employs."

    You just gave lots of people reasons to not trust PIA - the number one being that PIA makes disingenuous and false claims.
     
    The you talk about trust, when you have just made one heck of a disingenuous post. Its no surprise that person decided to go with another VPN, he was wise not to trust.  Just a look around the responses from PIA in the forum is enough to make perspective customers go somewhere else, then you post this and confirm their decision for them.

    Now you post like you think he is coming back to reply to you. I would not count on it.

    Whoever told you that you knew something about customer support lied to you.




  • OpenVPNOpenVPN
    PiaVipper said:
    *YAWN* we;ve been over all this in another thread. Facts are:
    1. PIA claim NOT to log
    2. PIA answered a court subpoena with what you read above (not proof of (1) but as good as you're going to get)
    3. you can either trust them or not.

    Bottom line is you're "safe" unless you are doing something where you deserve to be caught - even then, you might still be safe (unfortunately).
    PIAJayson said:
    Hi @bopnbob,

    We do not log. However, like other users had said, this was a recent topic and in response to that I changed the wording to state that we stated, under threat of perjury, that we replied to the court documents that we do not log.

    I will change the above article to reflect that, in order to help clarify and prevent confusion.
    This response reminds me of a former forum member who went by the username "jbis" Ring any bells?
    @bopnbob ; This sounds like someone was a bit overzealous in their wording and you're right for bringing this oversight up. I have petitioned to have the wording updated wherever we have access to it to be less confusing.

    The proper word to have used is not "proof", but "evidence", as negatives such as "not logging" are not easily provable outside of a controlled environments with guaranteed honest participants.

    We have public *evidence* that logging is not happening, but you will have to decide on your own if that evidence is sufficient enough to trust PIA in your own OPSEC threat model.


    Negatives


    You can't prove a negative, period. By using PIA (or any VPN), you're trusting the operator with some minimal connection data (even if they can't see what data you're sending).

    Where the statement you're criticizing ("proof PIA doesn't log") went wrong was that it eagerly claims that evidence is proof, instead of just really great evidence. The evidence it was referring to was



    Despite this great and unheard of evidence, it is normally quite safe to assume that all VPN providers are keeping logs for their own reasons, even when they publicly claim otherwise. Since there is no way to prove it, it is a great way to collect data while pretending to be on the side of privacy. The only way to be 100% sure the VPN you're using is not logging you is  to run your own baremetal OpenVPN server. As most people can't or don't want to do that, they pay for a VPN.

    Personally, I have never and will never trust the claims of any VPN service provider that they don't keep logs, even when the public laws support them, because it doesn't fit my OPSEC threat model to give such trust to a third party, period. Does it matter though? Not for me. I don't use VPNs outside of their respective threat model.

    This brings us to the main topic, and a recurring theme in security. Trust.

    People use PIA because they extend that trust based on various rational assessments, similary to how you ride the subway believing it won't crash or store your wealth in your local currency believing it won't crash the very next day and become worthless. There is no such thing as trustless systems, only methods which give more trust to elements that are more difficult to falsifly or corrupt (cryptography, hardware, etc).


    Then how do I trust PIA?


    This is the easy part. PIA kicks ass and supports all the right groups, donates money to all the right movements, has never been caught logging, and has evidence in court that it was unable to respond to the government's requests for logs with the stated reason being -- it had none! Logically, there is no real reason not to trust PIA, except if your personal threat model excludes it (which is fine).

    PIA has never given anyone reason to not trust them with data. Ever. Here is a video from Rick Falkvinge on the topic if you trust him. 


    Here are some articles on the topic as well. 





    You need to decide if you trust PIA or not for your own reasons. I trust my friends, but I would never show them my bitcoin private keys, and yet I would ride in a stranger's taxi trusting to take me from one place to the next safely. Assess your own risks and build your own threat model.

    When using PIA, use it in a way and scope you are willing to trust it with. 





    @bopnbob

    > I saw another thread but it seemed Private Internet Access was biased against a person posting about the proof thing

    If it's not too much trouble, could you point me to that thread? There is no excuse for bias and this question is a serious one that needs clarity and neutrality.

    > It made it look deceptive.

    I feel similarly and believe the wording was right to be changed and have petitioned for such anywhere we have the ability to do so.

    > Private Internet Access also seems to treat its customers very rudely and disingenuously if they bring up something like that in the thread about the "prove" thing.

    There is no excuse for that, so if you see it happening let me know. This is a topic that demands neutrality and transparency at all costs (literally!).

    > I think i'll go with another VPN.

    Sorry to see you go, but whatever your decision is, as long as it's based on your own threat model, it is the right decision to make and that's all that matters.

    sn0w

    Thank you for the very direct response. :)  I am certain potential customers as well as existing customers will appreciate it.
    The above statements should be pasted into a new announcement or blog post!

    bgxsec said:
    @bopnbob ; This sounds like someone was a bit overzealous in their wording and you're right for bringing this oversight up. I have petitioned to have the wording updated wherever we have access to it to be less confusing.

    The proper word to have used is not "proof", but "evidence", as negatives such as "not logging" are not easily provable outside of a controlled environments with guaranteed honest participants.

    We have public *evidence* that logging is not happening, but you will have to decide on your own if that evidence is sufficient enough to trust PIA in your own OPSEC threat model.


    Negatives


    You can't prove a negative, period. By using PIA (or any VPN), you're trusting the operator with some minimal connection data (even if they can't see what data you're sending).

    Where the statement you're criticizing ("proof PIA doesn't log") went wrong was that it eagerly claims that evidence is proof, instead of just really great evidence. The evidence it was referring to was



    Despite this great and unheard of evidence, it is normally quite safe to assume that all VPN providers are keeping logs for their own reasons, even when they publicly claim otherwise. Since there is no way to prove it, it is a great way to collect data while pretending to be on the side of privacy. The only way to be 100% sure the VPN you're using is not logging you is  to run your own baremetal OpenVPN server. As most people can't or don't want to do that, they pay for a VPN.

    Personally, I have never and will never trust the claims of any VPN service provider that they don't keep logs, even when the public laws support them, because it doesn't fit my OPSEC threat model to give such trust to a third party, period. Does it matter though? Not for me. I don't use VPNs outside of their respective threat model.

    This brings us to the main topic, and a recurring theme in security. Trust.

    People use PIA because they extend that trust based on various rational assessments, similary to how you ride the subway believing it won't crash or store your wealth in your local currency believing it won't crash the very next day and become worthless. There is no such thing as trustless systems, only methods which give more trust to elements that are more difficult to falsifly or corrupt (cryptography, hardware, etc).


    Then how do I trust PIA?


    This is the easy part. PIA kicks ass and supports all the right groups, donates money to all the right movements, has never been caught logging, and has evidence in court that it was unable to respond to the government's requests for logs with the stated reason being -- it had none! Logically, there is no real reason not to trust PIA, except if your personal threat model excludes it (which is fine).

    PIA has never given anyone reason to not trust them with data. Ever. Here is a video from Rick Falkvinge on the topic if you trust him. 


    Here are some articles on the topic as well. 





    You need to decide if you trust PIA or not for your own reasons. I trust my friends, but I would never show them my bitcoin private keys, and yet I would ride in a stranger's taxi trusting to take me from one place to the next safely. Assess your own risks and build your own threat model.

    When using PIA, use it in a way and scope you are willing to trust it with. 






    Evidence requires proof and is the available body of facts (or information) indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. If there is no proof that the proposition is true or valid then its not evidence. If its just statements then, as that one person posted, it requires the statements to be validated by fact or truth. PIA has already admitted there was no fact or proof to back up the original premise in their information that its been "proven in US court", PIA admitted this by changing the statement. You admit it now. Now you want to make matters worse by saying "We have public *evidence* that logging is not happening" when there was no proof in the first place? This just validates that one posters statement that "there is a lot of "over enthusiastic" word play and semantics games and some disingenuous statements or sentiment that Private Internet Access employs." and your comment was a humdinger example of such and it has nothing to do with an "OPSEC threat model"

    Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic. "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic. "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative, so, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Its not a real thing, and that makes it a disingenuous statement especially when you claim there is "evidence" that does not exist.

    Then you say "PIA kicks ass and supports all the right groups, donates money to all the right movements, has never been caught logging, and has evidence in court that it was unable to respond to the government's requests for logs with the stated reason being -- it had none!" when there is no such evidence, what you had was statements in subpoena and that's it and that is not evidence or proof that you do not have logs.

    You have done everything you could in your post to prove that persons statement of "there is a lot of "over enthusiastic" word play and semantics games and some disingenuous statements or sentiment that Private Internet Access employs."

    You just gave lots of people reasons to not trust PIA - the number one being that PIA makes disingenuous and false claims.
     
    The you talk about trust, when you have just made one heck of a disingenuous post. Its no surprise that person decided to go with another VPN, he was wise not to trust.  Just a look around the responses from PIA in the forum is enough to make perspective customers go somewhere else, then you post this and confirm their decision for them.

    Now you post like you think he is coming back to reply to you. I would not count on it.

    Whoever told you that you knew something about customer support lied to you.



    Please be respectful to all persons (employees as well as other forum users) and follow all forum rules and regulations.

    https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/21506/privacy-online-forums-rules
  • bgxsecbgxsec
    edited November 2017
    @OpenVPN

    "Forum Rules for Privacy Online Forums

    This is a global announcement post to cover some of the rules/regulations for our forum at this time.  This is not a complete list and is subject to change at any time.

    1. This is a public forum for discussion topics that are limited to Private Internet Access and general privacy/security related topics.

    2. This is not an official channel for support.  However, we try to help as best as we can.  Visit https://support.privateinternetaccess.com/ for official support.

    3. No distributing copyrighted materials/CP/adult content/etc.

    4. No flooding/spam"

    There was nothing in my post that  violated any of those forum rules. Telling the truth for the benefit of all who may see is not disrespectful if the person posted what is being talked about.


  • OpenVPNOpenVPN
    bgxsec said:
    @OpenVPN

    "Forum Rules for Privacy Online Forums

    This is a global announcement post to cover some of the rules/regulations for our forum at this time.  This is not a complete list and is subject to change at any time.

    1. This is a public forum for discussion topics that are limited to Private Internet Access and general privacy/security related topics.

    2. This is not an official channel for support.  However, we try to help as best as we can.  Visit https://support.privateinternetaccess.com/ for official support.

    3. No distributing copyrighted materials/CP/adult content/etc.

    4. No flooding/spam"

    There was nothing in my post that  violated any of those forum rules. Telling the truth for the benefit of all who may see is not disrespectful if the person posted what is being talked about.


    I’m only reminding you to please keep all discussions and responses clean and respectful. The tone and wording of a discussion or comment can determine whether or not a conversation is productive and positive.


  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited November 2017
    @bgxsec Good to see you didn't leave, I was hoping to have more chances to communicate with you. I was saddened that you had declined to start a new thread voicing your concerns, but it seems now that you're back you may have changed your mind about that. I hope to see your thread soon!

    Always good to hear outside opinions, even when I don't agree with them.

    @bopnbob for the benefit of yourself and future users not needing to filter through pages of off-topic posts, I'll go ahead and close this thread as I believe the concerns have been adequately addressed.

    I won't be removing any criticisms or complaints, and encourage anyone who wants to continue this discussion to start a new thread so that their particular issues can be addressed, and remain on-topic.
This discussion has been closed.