VPN Transparency Project

Author: markus

  • X-VPN

    X-VPN

    X-VPN is a freemium VPN service that has become well-known for its simplicity and extensive server network. However, these points are overshadowed by some major concerns, making it a questionable choice for privacy-conscious users. One key issue is the existence of adware built into its app, making it a risky choice for users valuing privacy and security.

    X-VPN is owned by Free Connected Limited, a Hong Kong-based company that, upon investigation, revealed alarming links to mainland China. Given China’s notorious approach towards VPNs and digital rights, this is a significant cause for concern.

    Considering all these factors, X-VPN doesn’t come across as a trustworthy service. Its price and value for money also rank low at 6.0 out of 10, especially when there are cheaper and more reliable alternatives available.

    Privacy Practices

    Among the numerous concerns associated with X-VPN, the most unsettling is its privacy and logging policy, which received a dismal score of 2.9 out of 10. While many VPNs pride themselves on a strict no-logs policy, X-VPN has chosen a path far from it.

    Firstly, X-VPN logs a range of information that should typically be off-limits for a VPN service, especially one that purportedly values user privacy. This logged data includes device information, individual bandwidth usage, and connection timestamps, a decision we find to be unacceptable. While none of this information may be immediately identifiable, when correlated, such data can potentially be used to de-anonymize user activity.

    For mobile app users, X-VPN goes a step further, collecting VPN connection timestamps, choice of VPN protocol, and network type. Although the service has recently reduced its data retention period from 96 to 48 hours, it still raises eyebrows as to why it needs to collect this data in the first place. Top VPN providers have shown it’s entirely possible to optimize service without maintaining such logs.

    Furthermore, X-VPN’s vague privacy policy and the extent of data it collects vary by device. Across all its apps, it logs data like device information, usage, and city-level location, ostensibly for product development purposes. Even though this data can be deleted upon request, it’s unclear how straightforward this process is and whether any residual data remains.

    X-VPN’s logging practices become all the more concerning when coupled with its ties to China. Given the stringent regulation and censorship in the country, the possibility of data being accessed by third parties or government authorities can’t be ruled out.

    Lastly, X-VPN’s logging policy has not been verified by an independent audit or backed by a warrant canary. This lack of transparency and validation casts further doubt on X-VPN’s commitment to user privacy.

    In conclusion, X-VPN’s privacy policy and data logging practices not only betray the core principles of what a VPN should stand for – privacy, security, and anonymity – but also place it as a poor choice for those seeking a genuinely private and secure online experience. Users are strongly advised to consider VPNs that have clear, user-friendly, and audited no-logs policies to ensure their online activities remain private and secure.

    During the review, we also noted multiple connections to various domains such as get-xmore-links8.com, api.du-just-link.com, etc., which only compounds our concerns about its commitment to user privacy and security.

    We strongly advise against using X-VPN, particularly its free version which comes without a kill switch and is restrictive on server locations. While it does have some positives like ease of use and ability to unblock streaming platforms, its serious flaws, especially the adware issue, make it a risky choice.

    We suggest exploring other VPN services ranked higher, which offer fast speed, reliable unblocking capabilities, and most importantly, prioritize user privacy and security.

  • Balancing Mental Health in a Digital World

    Balancing Mental Health in a Digital World

    The advent of the digital age has brought with it a sea of changes, both positive and negative. From streamlining communication and enhancing productivity, to revolutionizing education and entertainment, the digital world has become a critical part of our lives. However, while we navigate this vast, interconnected landscape, it is crucial to understand and address the impact of digital technology on our mental health.

    Embracing the spirit of becoming ungovernable means not only understanding the impact of technology on mental health but also taking proactive action. As we heighten our awareness, we can develop healthier digital habits, thereby reducing our reliance on pharmaceutical treatments for stress, anxiety, and other mental health challenges. By maintaining control over our digital interactions, we’re asserting our autonomy and reclaiming our mental well-being. This aligns with our larger goal of personal sovereignty, reducing our dependence on external systems and shaping our own well-being.

    Digital Overload: The Impact of Always-On Culture on Mental Health

    Research, including a broad analysis published in Nature, suggests that the ubiquitous nature of digital technology, particularly the always-on culture, can have significant effects on our mental well-being. The constant barrage of information, the pressure of social comparisons, and the “Fear of Missing Out” (FOMO) driven by social media platforms can trigger or exacerbate mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and attention deficit disorders.

    Furthermore, the displacement of face-to-face interaction by digital communication can lead to feelings of loneliness and isolation. Studies referenced in the Children’s Bureau Express highlight the alarming trend of decreased social skills and increased feelings of loneliness among children and adolescents, paralleling their increased use of technology.

    Yet, it is not about painting a grim picture but about fostering awareness and seeking balance. Digital technology is not inherently harmful – it’s the excessive, unregulated use that often spirals into problems. The goal is to harness the benefits of technology while mitigating its potential negative impacts on our mental health.

    The Path Towards Digital Balance

    One of the most profound ways of striking this balance is reconnecting with nature. A study from the Yale School of Environment underscores the increasing disconnect between humans and nature in the U.S. The widening nature gap has been linked to a host of health issues, including deteriorating mental health. On the flip side, the study also sheds light on potential solutions: more exposure to natural environments can lower stress levels, improve mood, and increase cognitive functioning. Even brief periods of nature engagement can produce measurable improvements in mental well-being.

    Building a healthier relationship with digital technology also involves creating spaces for digital detox – periods where we consciously disengage from our digital devices. This disconnection allows us to rest our minds, break the cycle of constant stimulation, and engage more fully with the world around us. Furthermore, encouraging activities that foster real-life social interactions can help balance the effects of virtual connectivity.

    Mindfulness techniques can also play a key role in managing the impact of digital technology on mental health. Practicing mindfulness can help us become more aware of our online behaviors, enabling us to use technology more intentionally, rather than out of habit or compulsion.

    Balancing mental health in a digital world is not about rejecting technology, but about learning to use it in ways that enrich rather than detract from our lives. It’s about finding the space to disconnect and reconnect – with ourselves, with others, and with the natural world. It is a journey towards personal sovereignty, where we control technology, not the other way around.

    In the upcoming sections of this chapter, we will delve deeper into practical strategies for achieving this balance, guided by the principle of “becoming ungovernable” in our approach to mental health in a digital world.

    Unplugging and Reconnecting with Nature – Practical Strategies

    In our journey towards personal sovereignty, it’s not enough to merely understand the impact of digital technology on mental health. We must also take proactive steps to build healthier habits for ourselves and our children. One of the most effective and rewarding strategies is to unplug from our digital devices and reconnect with nature.

    Research has consistently highlighted the profound mental health benefits of spending time outdoors. An analysis of several studies found that being in a green environment enhances mood and self-esteem, with individuals battling mental health issues experiencing notable improvements in their symptoms. Furthermore, a study by the University of Michigan demonstrated that group nature walks can significantly reduce perceived stress and enhance overall mental well-being.

    But how do we go about this in practice, particularly in a cost-effective manner? Here are some strategies that parents and children alike can employ to foster a deeper connection with nature:

    1. Backyard Exploration: You don’t have to travel far to connect with nature. If you have a backyard or even a small garden, encourage your children to explore it. Activities like bird-watching, gardening, or even simply lying on the grass and observing the sky can offer substantial benefits.

    2. Public Parks and Trails: Public parks and trails offer vast, open spaces where children can play freely and adults can engage in activities like jogging, walking, or yoga. This is also a great opportunity for families to engage in outdoor games and activities together.

    3. Free Museums and Interpretive Exhibits: Check out free museums, botanical gardens, and interpretive exhibits in your local area. These often offer rich educational experiences about nature and wildlife.

    4. Use Technology to Enhance Nature Exploration: While the goal is to reduce dependency on digital technology, it can sometimes aid our exploration of the outdoors. Apps that help identify plants, animals, or constellations can make nature walks more engaging and informative. Augmented reality apps can also bring an exciting twist to outdoor adventures. Remember, it’s about using technology as a tool that serves us.

    5. Nature Journaling: Encourage your children (and yourself!) to keep a nature journal. Draw what you see, write down your observations, thoughts, and feelings. This not only deepens your connection with nature but also boosts creativity and mindfulness.

    Incorporating nature into our daily lives is a multi-faceted strategy that offers immense benefits. Not only does it improve mental health, but it also provides opportunities for physical activity, learning, creativity, and quality family time. So, unplug those devices, step outside, and embrace the healing power of nature. Through this simple yet powerful act, we take another step towards reclaiming our sovereignty in the digital age.

    The Impact of Noise and Light Pollution on Mental Health and Sleep

    A quieter, darker night is more than just a peaceful concept—it’s a crucial factor for our physical and mental well-being. The escalating problem of noise and light pollution in urban areas has been increasingly linked to significant sleep disturbances and mental health issues.

    Noise Pollution

    Noise pollution, emanating from traffic, construction, industrial activities, and even household appliances, can severely impact the quality of our sleep and overall mental health. According to a study referenced by Blubbs, exposure to such unwanted sounds can lead to difficulties falling asleep, frequent awakenings, and shorter sleep duration.

    Moreover, noise isn’t just a nocturnal problem. Our brains are wired to constantly monitor sounds for signs of danger, meaning that exposure to frequent or loud noise can trigger anxiety or stress reactions. Over time, constant exposure to noise pollution can even increase a person’s overall sensitivity to stress.

    Light Pollution

    On the other hand, exposure to bright, artificial outdoor lights during the night, also known as light pollution, can significantly disrupt our sleep patterns. Research highlighted by Harvard Health suggests that individuals exposed to higher levels of light pollution may struggle with sleeplessness and are more likely to turn to medication to aid sleep.1

    Artificial light, particularly from electronic devices like smartphones and laptops, can also interfere with our sleep cycle. The Sleep Foundation points out that exposure to light during night can hinder transitions between sleep stages, reduce the quality of sleep, and lead to repeated awakenings. The result is less time spent in deeper, restorative sleep stages, which are crucial for our physical and mental health.

    Towards Quieter, Darker Nights

    As we strive to become ‘ungovernable’ and reclaim our sovereignty in this bustling world, it’s important to acknowledge these environmental factors that are often overlooked. Understanding the detrimental effects of noise and light pollution is a crucial first step. In the upcoming sections, we’ll explore practical, cost-effective strategies to mitigate these effects, fostering a healthier sleeping environment, and, consequently, enhancing our mental health and overall well-being.

  • The Dual Future of the Information Age: AI vs Crypto

    The Dual Future of the Information Age: AI vs Crypto

    The Information Age has brought rapid technological change and global connectivity. But emerging technologies also pose a question about the future structure of society: will they decentralize power or concentrate it? The book The Sovereign Individual by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson envisioned a future where individuals leverage technology to decentralize power away from nation-states. In a globalized world, people would have more options to choose from and move between jurisdictions that best suit their needs. This vision suggests we may see a weaker role for centralized institutions and greater autonomy for individuals. However, the recent rise of China suggests an alternative vision. China has harnessed new technologies to enable authoritarian control and centralized power. Through tight regulation of the internet, investments in surveillance, and social control systems enabled by AI and big data, China has strengthened the Communist party’s grip on power. China seeks to portray its system of control as a new form of “cyber sovereignty.” This tension between the decentralized future envisioned in “The Sovereign Individual” and China’s centralized authoritarian model represents two opposing possibilities for how society develops in the Information Age. The question is whether emerging technologies will primarily drive decentralization or enable greater central control. The answer will shape the balance between individuals and institutions in the digital future.

    The Rise of China and Its Embrace of AI

    China has emerged as a global superpower in the Information Age, but rather than decentralizing power as envisioned in “The Sovereign Individual,” China has moved in the opposite direction. Under President Xi Jinping, China has centralized control and embraced digital authoritarianism.

    China has tightened its grip over Hong Kong, passing a strict national security law in 2020 that criminalizes dissent against Beijing. The law has been used to crack down on pro-democracy protests and speech. This runs counter to the vision of Hong Kong as a “jurisdiction that would flourish in the Information Age. China aims to become the world leader in AI by 2030. In 2017, China released its “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan,” aiming to build a domestic AI industry worth $150 billion. China has invested heavily in AI through companies like Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu as well as government funding for R&D at universities and research institutes across the country.

    China is deploying AI for surveillance and social control. An estimated 200 million cameras monitor citizens, enabled by AI for facial recognition. China has developed a “social credit system” that aggregates data to assign citizens a rating based on their behavior. “Good” behavior leads to privileges while “bad” behavior leads to restrictions. The system aims to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

    China’s rise and embrace of AI suggests a vision in sharp contrast with the decentralization predicted in “The Sovereign Individual.” Instead, China is leveraging new technologies to construct a digital regime of control, monitoring individuals and curbing dissent. For China’s leaders, AI is a means to maximize power through constant surveillance and algorithmically-enhanced authoritarianism. Their ambition is an Orwellian society where people are controlled and power is concentrated at the top.

    AI and the Potential Solution to the “Calculation Problem”

    The “calculation problem” refers to the challenge of centrally coordinating an economy due to the vast volume of information required to make efficient decisions. As economist Friedrich Hayek argued, the free market is an effective system that leverages decentralized knowledge to allocate resources efficiently, something that centralized planners cannot replicate as effectively.

    However, advances in AI could potentially address the calculation problem by enabling governments to aggregate and analyze massive amounts of data, thereby optimizing economic planning. China, in particular, aims to leverage AI for precisely this purpose. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) envisions AI as a tool to enhance its state-run economy by improving resource allocation, predicting market trends, monitoring supply chains, and facilitating extensive surveillance of citizens in their roles as both consumers and producers.

    Yet, this ambitious vision of AI-aided central planning is fraught with significant challenges and risks. Firstly, the sheer scale of data required poses potential privacy and security violations. China’s extensive surveillance systems necessitate access to large volumes of data, some of which include sensitive personal information.

    Secondly, AI systems are vulnerable to the prejudices of their human creators. If AI is designed by officials with the primary aim of maximizing state control, the system may prioritize political security over economic efficiency or citizens’ welfare.

    Lastly, centralized data repositories present attractive targets for cyber threats, with a breach potentially having systemic impacts. An over-reliance on AI and data for economic coordination could leave China exposed should its systems malfunction, be disrupted, or encounter technical issues.

    In theory, AI may offer a solution to Hayek’s calculation problem. However, in practice, AI-aided central planning is risky and fraught with imperfections. While promising an optimally managed state economy, China’s strategy necessitates mass surveillance, concentrates power in the hands of biased systems and human officials, and creates vulnerability due to over-centralization. Therefore, a decentralized free market may hold some advantages over even an AI-enhanced planned economy.

    The Promise of Cryptography and Decentralization

    Cryptography, the art of secure communication, holds potential for driving decentralization of power. This is particularly true in the context of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies.

    Blockchain technology creates a distributed ledger that allows peer-to-peer transactions without a central authority. This can democratize processes like payments, contracts, and asset management. However, despite its potential, the broad implementation of blockchain technology remains hindered by regulatory challenges, and its adoption is still relatively niche.

    Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, provide a method for decentralized digital payments that exist outside of centralized banking systems. Some countries, like El Salvador, have embraced Bitcoin as legal tender, while others, like China, have outlawed it. Still, the majority of nations are in a state of uncertainty. If widely adopted, cryptocurrencies could disrupt traditional financial systems, ushering in a new era of decentralized global finance.

    Nevertheless, cryptocurrencies come with their own set of risks. They are prone to extreme volatility, the technology is often too complex for mainstream adoption, and “mining” cryptocurrency is an energy-intensive process. For instance, the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining rivals that of entire countries, such as Argentina.

    While blockchain and crypto offer a vision of decentralization, they also introduce new challenges. Limited applications and adoption mean that, for the time being, most power remains in the hands of centralized institutions. Additionally, decentralized systems can often be slower, less secure, and less equipped to prevent large-scale criminal activity compared to regulated central institutions.

    Decentralized technologies are likely to achieve only partial decentralization. Rather than completely upending centralized power structures, they may primarily serve to pressurize traditional institutions to become more transparent and fair. But the degree of decentralization will largely depend on the evolution of regulatory frameworks.

    With careful regulation, cryptographic technologies could enable a system of “decentralization with democracy.” This system would empower individuals with greater choice and control, while maintaining institutional checks against misuse. But without adequate safeguards, these tools risk creating chaos and undermining established stability.

    Cryptography carries revolutionary potential, but its promise hinges on how responsibly we harness its power. Absolute decentralization seems implausible, which means that a centrally regulated system with room for individual freedom may offer the best balance. Meeting society’s needs requires a careful equilibrium between autonomy and order, a balance that no single technology can establish on its own.

    The US Context: A Laboratory of Jurisdictional Competition

    The US federal system provides a glimpse into how new technologies may enable greater “jurisdictional competition” as envisioned in “The Sovereign Individual.” States compete to attract businesses and residents. Americans can choose which state’s laws govern them by moving, enabling competition.

    Recent examples suggest a move toward more choice. States like Texas, Nevada, and Colorado attract residents and companies with low taxes and regulations. People and businesses “vote with their feet” – escaping states where local governments overstep or mismanage.

    However, countervailing pressures also favor centralization. Federal policies like healthcare, education, environmental and labor regulations impose uniform standards and limit interstate competition. There are calls for additional federal policies around tech regulation, wages, and more.

    While state competition empowers individuals with more choice over how they are governed, nationwide mandates can restrict choice. There is a tension between state autonomy, federal oversight, and individuals navigating the space between.

    The US also shows how technology may intensify small fractures into great divisions if left unchecked. Social media echo chambers and partisan news sources polarize rather than unite. But technologies like AI could also potentially bridge divides by tailoring resources to individuals. Overall, more choice is enabled by technology – but within the bounds of reasonable regulation.

    Technology gives people greater leverage to pick and choose from available governance models but also greater freedoms to fissure into echo chambers. The US case suggests decentralization progresses slowly, fitfully, and imperfectly, its pace tied to a nation’s appetite for both autonomy and cohesion. A public coming apart at the digital seams suggests jurisdictions compete most vigorously where societies value both independence and interdependence.

    In the US, the push and pull between state competition and federal mandates reflects this delicate balance. Americans want maximum choice, but within reason and regulated order. Total decentralization remains far-fetched but more modest freedoms to choose governance lie within reach, enabled by tech and guided by a shared interest in compromise over fracture. The future may be diverse populations unified only by a common quest for tailored liberty.

    Conclusion: Navigating the Future Intersections of Centralization and Decentralization

    AI and cryptography represent the dual futures of centralization and decentralization taking shape before us. However, rather than a binary choice between these paths, the reality will likely lie at the intersection where centralization and decentralization co-exist in balance.

    Centralized AI could optimize infrastructure and administration, but with individuals in control of their own data and choices. Smart cities may run on AI, but transparency and privacy are prioritized over surveillance. Regulations guide technology, but individuals select their own governance.

    Decentralized crypto could enable more autonomy and control but within legal bounds. Digital currencies may operate on open blockchains, but comply with laws. Information flows freely, but “ML fairness” and curbs on misinformation intervene.

    We need not see centralization and decentralization as opposed and incompatible. Responsible technology and pragmatic policy could forge a future both monitored and empowering, efficient yet free, transparent yet secure. Where decentralization descends into disorder or centralization crosses into authoritarianism, the public may clamor for course corrections to restore balance.

    More likely than any absolutist vision of total control or complete decentralization, the future shall land where each individual’s place on the spectrum from autonomy to security is weighed and respected. The promise of technology is maximized liberty compatible with the common good. The peril is false dichotomies that split society into ideological halves instead of a whole that is decentralized, centralized and, above all, cohesive.

    Our shared duty is to realize technology’s promise and avoid its peril. With prudent progress, AI and crypto could enable a future that is open yet orderly, and politically divided but pragmatically united. The future is not decentralization or centralization – but a synthesis of both on terms acceptable to all. Our choice is not ‘whether’ but ‘how’ we shall live free and regulated together. Utopia emerges at the point of tension, where personal and collective interests converge.

  • After Influx of New Users from Mullvad, IVPN Will Also End Support for Port Forwarding

    After Influx of New Users from Mullvad, IVPN Will Also End Support for Port Forwarding

    Last month, the revered VPN provider Mullvad announced they were removing port forwarding from their service citing abuse and legal concerns. Now IVPN, another reputable VPN service, has announced they too will be phasing out port forwarding from their offerings.

    In a blog post, IVPN explained that while most of their customers use the port forwarding feature for legitimate purposes, “actions of a few can have undesirable consequences affecting the whole VPN network.” Specifically, they noted an increase in “large scale abuse and sharing of objectionable materials” as well as a “significant influx of new customers” after Mullvad’s policy change. This has put a strain on IVPN’s servers and operations.

    IVPN also cited an increase in law enforcement inquiries and issues with data centers as reasons for removing port forwarding. “We have no insights into how any one specific customer uses IVPN, and that needs to stay that way,” IVPN wrote. “After careful deliberation, we have found no other way to avoid further negative outcomes, but to gradually remove the port forwarding feature from service.”

    [adinserter block=”1″]

    One customer asked why IVPN can’t just ban accounts reported for abuse rather than removing port forwarding altogether. IVPN responded that their priority is privacy-focused customers, and port forwarding also enables problematic uses that have strained their service since another major VPN provider banned port forwarding. Simply banning abusive accounts wouldn’t work since new anonymous accounts can be created quickly. IVPN concluded they must choose between offering port forwarding or ensuring a stable service long-term. While inconvenient for some, removing port forwarding seems the prudent choice.

    Port forwarding allows VPN users to access services running behind the VPN like websites, game servers or self-hosted servers. However, as Mullvad and now IVPN have found, it can also be abused for malicious purposes like hosting undesirable or illegal content. This abuse has led to IP addresses getting blacklisted, issues with hosting providers, and a worse experience for most VPN users.

    While some users may be upset with IVPN’s decision, as with Mullvad’s policy change, it seems to be a necessary step to protect the majority of their rule-abiding customers and ensure a stable service. The move may also help IVPN avoid some of the legal and abuse issues Mullvad cited in their announcement last month. Overall, IVPN appears to be making a prudent choice, even if an inconvenient one for some power users.

    So… What now?

    It’s important to acknowledge the legitimate users who relied on port forwarding for activities such as torrenting. For them, this change in policy may seem like an inconvenience or even a setback. However, alternate solutions like seedboxes, which are not plagued by these issues, remain viable options. These dedicated servers can provide high-speed torrenting, bypassing the need for port forwarding and offering an extra layer of privacy to boot.

    That said, the struggle against illegal activities on the internet often resembles a game of cat and mouse. VPN providers like IVPN are caught in the middle, striving to balance the needs and wants of their user base with the necessity of maintaining lawful operations and robust relationships with their data center partners.

    In the face of such challenges, it’s understandable that IVPN prioritizes its role in helping individuals avoid mass surveillance. This mission, to protect the privacy of the many, is fundamental to their service. In this light, the decision to restrict port forwarding — a feature that has been weaponized by a few individuals for illegal operations — becomes a sensible sacrifice for the greater good. It’s a testament to their commitment to privacy, operational stability, and the long-term viability of their service. As users, it’s crucial for us to understand these dynamics, adapt to these changes, and explore alternate solutions that align with our needs.

    [adinserter block=”1″]

    Not a new problem

    IVPN’s policy change highlights an ongoing struggle that has persisted since the early days of the internet. There is a delicate balance between privacy and freedom that VPNs and other online services must grapple with.

    On the one hand, VPNs are created to protect users’ privacy and allow them to avoid censorship and mass surveillance. Services like IVPN are necessary to give individuals access to information without oversight or limitations. However, the same privacy and anonymity these tools provide can also be exploited for malicious ends like the spread of illegal or objectionable content.

    This tension is not new or unique to VPNs. It has been an issue since the development of the world wide web. While the internet was designed as an open platform for the free exchange of information and ideas, that openness also enables the spread of misinformation, privacy violations, online harassment, and more.

    There is no easy solution to this dilemma. Companies and policymakers have experimented with various approaches over the years, from self-regulation to restrictive laws and policies. However, enacting limits on privacy or internet freedoms also poses risks if taken too far. It is a question with valid arguments on both sides.

    For services like IVPN, decisions around port forwarding, privacy policies and allowable use come down to finding the right balance for their service and users. Their choice to restrict a feature prone to abuse is one approach to this complex problem. However, it is not without its downsides and there are no perfect or permanent answers. Managing privacy and freedom online remains an ongoing challenge without a simple fix.

  • Proton releases Proton Pass to the public

    Proton releases Proton Pass to the public

    Today, Proton has announced the public release of Proton Pass to its growing suite of secure services, cementing its position as a leader in the privacy tech movement. Designed for privacy-conscious individuals, Proton now offers an integrated ecosystem that includes email, VPN, password management, calendar, and cloud storage.

    In an era marked by mass surveillance and data exploitation, Proton is dedicated to providing user-friendly tools that prioritize privacy and security. The company has consistently demonstrated that it is possible to create innovative services that are both secure and accessible, without compromising on design or profitability.

    Over the years, Proton’s mission-driven approach has set it apart from competitors. Rather than viewing privacy as a hindrance to good design or profitability, Proton has embraced the concept of “privacy by design,” consistently working towards an integrated platform that offers security without sacrificing ease of use.

    For those passionate about technology that supports freedom and human rights, Proton is a shining example of a company that values principles and puts them at the forefront of its progress. By focusing on “privacy for all,” Proton has shown that security and liberty don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

    As the demand for independent tech companies with a strong focus on privacy continues to grow, Proton stands out as a trailblazer. By developing services that make privacy accessible for everyone, the company is unlocking the potential for a more secure and empowered user experience.

    Affordability and Accessibility: The Proton Suite’s Comprehensive Offerings

    Remarkably, Proton offers a free plan that provides limited access to all its products, making privacy-centric tools available for users across different financial backgrounds. What’s even more impressive is that a fully unlocked plan costs only $11.99 a month (if paid monthly). To put it into perspective, that’s the equivalent of two Starbucks drinks a month!

    For this price, users get access to a powerful VPN, privacy-enhancing features like disposable emails through SimpleLogin, and up to three custom domains. This allows for the generation of email addresses like [email protected], further protecting users from unwanted tracking or spam.

    But is the Proton suite suitable for everyone? The answer depends on individual needs and threat models. For the average person who values privacy and wants to keep prying eyes at bay, Proton’s offerings are ideal. However, for those with heightened threat models, it may be advisable not to rely solely on one service provider. In such cases, employing a variety of identity-masking techniques and services would be a smarter approach. Be sure to check out our other guides for more information on additional privacy tools and strategies.

    In conclusion, Proton’s ongoing commitment to creating secure, user-friendly tools offers a refreshing and optimistic outlook on the future of technology. By focusing on empowering users rather than exploiting them, the company is demonstrating what is possible when principles shape progress. It’s an exciting time to follow Proton’s journey, as they continue to lead the way in privacy-centric innovation.

  • Is Uruguay a good country for VPNs?

    Is Uruguay a good country for VPNs?

    1. Freedom of Expression and Censorship

    2. P2P and Torrenting Policies

    3. Government Surveillance and Data Retention Laws

    4. Privacy Protections

    Scoring as ‘Above Average’ on the Privacy Protection Index, Uruguay presents a generally open digital landscape. The country is lauded for its strong commitment to freedom of expression and privacy, evidenced by comprehensive data protection laws. Although there are limited regulations on file-sharing and some expansions of government access to user data, Uruguay is known for promoting internet freedom. However, continuous vigilance and updates to privacy laws are necessary to guard against potential government overreach and to align with evolving technology, ensuring that Uruguay maintains its high standard for internet freedom.

    Pros:

    • Historically open and uncensored internet environment.
    • Strong protections for freedom of expression.
    • Comprehensive privacy protections through the 2014 data protection law.
    • Limited surveillance tools with judicial review.
    • Rapid internet usage growth under pro-open access government.

      For ultimate privacy, we recommend using Switzerland if speed and latency are not a primary concern.

    Cons:

    • Government data requests from tech companies without court orders.
    • Increasing risks to user privacy and freedom of expression.
    • Ambiguous and limited practical effectiveness of data protection law.
    • Laws expanding government cybercrime monitoring and data retention.
    • Threat to libertarian traditions due to expanded surveillance.

    Freedom of Expression and Censorship

    Uruguay has exceptionally strong protections for freedom of expression that extend to the digital realm. Article 29 of Uruguay’s constitution guarantees the right to free speech, press, and dissemination of ideas. Uruguay is also party to major international agreements enshrining free expression, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    In practice, censorship of online content is virtually non-existent in Uruguay according to assessments by watchdog groups like Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders. There are no government restrictions on accessing information or major websites. Social media and global platforms are freely available.

    The government actively supports an open and neutral internet model. In a 2018 resolution, Uruguay’s regulatory agency declared the internet a “common good” that should remain “open, neutral, secure and sustainable.” Lawmakers argue an open internet is crucial for Uruguay’s growing tech sector and IT economy to thrive.

    However, some laws passed under industry pressure risk online freedom if misapplied or expanded, though enforcement currently remains limited (see below). There is no evidence of systematic government interference with or blocking of internet access according to recent studies. The media landscape in Uruguay is diverse and largely self-regulated.

    P2P and Torrenting Policies

    Uruguay takes a relatively open and permissive stance regarding peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing and torrenting. After years of legal limbo, a new copyright law was enacted in 2014 that formally legalized P2P downloading of content for personal and non-commercial use. The law imposes no fines or criminal penalties for individuals engaging in downloading content through P2P networks and torrenting according to government data. However, those uploading copyrighted content or profiting from distribution of pirated media could still face sanctions under the law. In practice, enforcement appears lax as there have been no reported cases of criminal prosecutions for individuals or groups engaging primarily in downloading copyrighted material for personal use. Uruguay’s open Internet policies and legalization of P2P file sharing for non-commercial purposes put it at odds with much of the global trend toward stricter copyright enforcement online.

    Government Surveillance and Data Retention Laws

    Uruguay has taken steps to regulate government surveillance and protect citizens’ privacy rights. Law 19.307, passed in 2015, requires data retention requests to be judicially authorized and limits retention periods to 12 months. The law also prohibits mass surveillance and requires transparency reports from telecommunication providers on data requests. However, some critics argue the law lacks independence oversight mechanisms and strong sanctions for non-compliance. There are no official statistics on government requests for data or the number of people under surveillance, but civil rights groups report increasing numbers of requests from law enforcement and intelligence agencies in recent years. Uruguay still lags behind some other Latin American countries in enacting comprehensive privacy and data protection laws.

    Privacy Protections

    Uruguay has taken some positive steps to protect citizens’ digital privacy and regulate government surveillance. The most important law is Law 19.307 passed in 2015, which establishes rules for data retention and requests from law enforcement agencies. The law requires data retention requests to be judicially authorized and limits retention periods to 12 months. It also prohibits mass surveillance and mandates that telecommunications providers publish annual transparency reports on the number of data requests they receive. This law aimed to impose some restrictions and oversight on government agencies accessing citizens’ personal data and communications.

    However, critics argue that Law 19.307 still has some shortcomings. The law does not establish an independent oversight body to monitor compliance and ensure authorities follow appropriate procedures for data requests. It also lacks strong penalties for telecom companies or government agencies that violate provisions of the law. Despite the new legislation, civil rights groups report that requests for data from law enforcement and intelligence agencies continue to rise in Uruguay, indicating insufficient oversight. Uruguay also lags behind some other Latin American countries that have enacted stronger privacy laws with more independence oversight and data protections. Nonetheless, Law 19.307 was an important first step for Uruguay in recognizing the need for safeguards around digital privacy and government surveillance.

    Conclusion

    Uruguay has taken some positive steps to protect citizens’ digital privacy and regulate government surveillance. The most important law is Law 19.307 passed in 2015, which establishes rules for data retention and requests from law enforcement agencies. The law requires data retention requests to be judicially authorized and limits retention periods to 12 months. It also prohibits mass surveillance and mandates that telecommunications providers publish annual transparency reports on the number of data requests they receive. This law aimed to impose some restrictions and oversight on government agencies accessing citizens’ personal data and communications.

    However, critics argue that Law 19.307 still has some shortcomings. The law does not establish an independent oversight body to monitor compliance and ensure authorities follow appropriate procedures for data requests. It also lacks strong penalties for telecom companies or government agencies that violate provisions of the law. Despite the new legislation, civil rights groups report that requests for data from law enforcement and intelligence agencies continue to rise in Uruguay, indicating insufficient oversight. Uruguay also lags behind some other Latin American countries that have enacted stronger privacy laws with more independence oversight and data protections. Nonetheless, Law 19.307 was an important first step for Uruguay in recognizing the need for safeguards around digital privacy and government surveillance.

    VPN servers in Uruguay:

    References

    1. Keats Citron, D. (2017, November 28). What to Do about the Emerging Threat of Censorship Creep on the Internet. Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/what-do-about-emerging-threat-censorship-creep-internet

    2. Dutch House of Representatives passes dragnet surveillance bill. European Digital Rights (EDRi). (2020, August 21). https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-house-of-representatives-passes-dragnet-surveillance-bill/

    3. Press, T. A. (2011, September 6). Hacking in the Netherlands took aim at internet Giants (published 2011). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/technology/hacking-in-the-netherlands-broadens-in-scope.html

    Related Posts

  • Is Netherlands a good country for VPNs?

    Is Netherlands a good country for VPNs?

    1. Freedom of Expression and Censorship

    2. P2P and Torrenting Policies

    3. Government Surveillance and Data Retention Laws

    4. Privacy Protections

    The landscape of digital rights and privacy in the Netherlands is complex and multifaceted. The nation, traditionally renowned for its dedication to privacy and an open internet, has experienced considerable changes in its regulatory and policy frameworks over the past decades. This article explores the context of these shifts, utilizing the Privacy Protection Index (PPI) as a benchmark, with a focus on freedom of expression, peer-to-peer (P2P) activity, government surveillance, data retention laws, and privacy protections.

    Pros:

    • Strict privacy laws like GDPR-based Data Protection Act limiting government/commercial use of personal data
    • Relaxed copyright policies allow non-commercial file-sharing and torrenting for personal use
    • Open access to streaming services and support for net neutrality
    • Light government censorship relative to some nations

    Recommended alternative: Switzerland

    Cons:

    • Member of 9 Eyes mass surveillance alliance
    • Data retained for 4-6 months
    • Hate speech/anti-discrimination laws and private censorship may be overbroad
    • Intelligence agency oversight lacks transparency/independence
    • History shows surveillance overreach, leaks, failures, and rights violations

    Freedom of Expression and Censorship

    The Netherlands has a long tradition of upholding free speech rights and open access to information, as enshrined in laws like Article 7 of its Constitution which protects freedom of expression. However, the country has also enacted limited restrictions on certain controversial forms of speech, such as Holocaust denial and hate speech targeting protected groups, which are prohibited by articles 137c and d of the Dutch Penal Code. A 2016 report by the Media Authority found a total of 463 content removal requests citing hate speech in the Netherlands that year, 70% of which were granted, showing censorship remains limited relative to most European nations but is applied in select cases of extremist expression. Overall, protections for freedom of speech in the Netherlands remain strong in comparison globally according to rankings by Reporters Without Borders, earning the country a “Good” rating and placing it in the top 10% of nations for press freedoms and open internet use, despite tensions familiar to other democracies in balancing civil liberties, security interests, and protections of minority groups.

    P2P and Torrenting Policies

    The Netherlands is known for its strong support of open internet access and was one of the first countries to enshrine net neutrality principles into law. This approach extends to relatively relaxed policies around peer-to-peer file sharing and torrenting for non-commercial purposes. While downloading copyrighted content is technically illegal according to Dutch copyright law, the government focuses anti-piracy efforts primarily on large-scale distributors and commercial infringement. For personal use, individuals are allowed to freely share and download non-copyrighted materials, and even access some copyrighted works. The combination of high internet speeds, limited restrictions on torrenting, and a hands-off regulatory approach has made the Netherlands a popular location for P2P services and a hub for file sharing in Europe. Overall, Dutch policies aim to balance open access with protections for rights holders in a way that enables people to benefit from P2P technologies and networks for lawful and personal purposes.

    Government Surveillance and Data Retention Laws

    Despite its robust privacy laws, the Netherlands’ involvement in surveillance alliances like the 9 Eyes has raised concerns about privacy. The country’s participation in these alliances suggests engagement in broad data-sharing and mass surveillance activities, which threaten individual privacy.

    Furthermore, historical incidents have indicated potential overreach in surveillance practices. In 2015, a “dragnet surveillance law” was enacted, requiring telecom companies to store metadata on phone and internet communications for up to two years. Although this law was eventually overturned in court, it was replaced with similarly controversial policies.

    Privacy Protections

    The Netherlands boasts strong privacy laws, aided by its membership in the European Union and the enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — one of the world’s most robust data protection frameworks. Yet, despite these strong protections, privacy issues persist. In the early 2000s, hackers exposed vulnerabilities in privacy protections by accessing details on thousands of individuals held in domestic intelligence agency databases.

    Conclusion

    In navigating its complex digital rights landscape, the Netherlands is tasked with the delicate balance between freedom of expression, privacy, and security. Despite the country’s robust privacy laws and open internet, its participation in surveillance alliances and imposition of certain speech restrictions may indicate a shift from its traditional values. In contrast, a country like Switzerland, a neighbour not in geographical terms but in the European context, provides a stronger commitment to these principles. Known for its stringent privacy laws and high-speed, low-latency internet, Switzerland can be seen as a role model in this arena. Hence, while the Netherlands offers a generally favorable environment for digital privacy, continuous vigilance and comparison with robust digital rights exemplars like Switzerland is essential to ensure that rights and freedoms are not compromised in the face of rapidly evolving technology and policy landscapes.

    VPN servers in Netherlands:

    References

    1. Keats Citron, D. (2017, November 28). What to Do about the Emerging Threat of Censorship Creep on the Internet. Cato.org. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/what-do-about-emerging-threat-censorship-creep-internet

    2. Dutch House of Representatives passes dragnet surveillance bill. European Digital Rights (EDRi). (2020, August 21). https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-house-of-representatives-passes-dragnet-surveillance-bill/

    3. Press, T. A. (2011, September 6). Hacking in the Netherlands took aim at internet Giants (published 2011). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/technology/hacking-in-the-netherlands-broadens-in-scope.html

    Related Posts

  • Mullvad’s Misguided Move into Search and Browsers

    Mullvad’s Misguided Move into Search and Browsers

    Mullvad, a renowned VPN service provider, recently introduced Mullvad Leta, a search engine exclusive to users with a paid Mullvad VPN account. While Mullvad aims to provide additional privacy-focused features, some users may question the effectiveness and purpose of Mullvad Leta. With numerous existing privacy-based search engines available, such as Brave Search, DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Mojeek, it is worth examining whether Mullvad’s investment in this search feature truly benefits the end user or if it could have been better utilized in other areas, such as server infrastructure or app improvements.

    Mullvad Leta operates by utilizing the Google Search API as a proxy and caching search results. While this approach reduces costs and improves privacy by sharing cached results among users, it is important to note that it doesn’t generate any direct revenue for Mullvad. With so many established privacy-focused search engines available, Mullvad Leta’s value proposition becomes questionable. Users already have access to alternative search engines that offer similar or even more comprehensive privacy features without the need for a paid VPN account.

    The development of Mullvad Leta and the Mullvad Browser raises concerns about the allocation of resources. Rather than investing in these additional features, users may argue that the money and resources could have been better utilized in expanding server infrastructure to enhance speed and coverage in more countries. Additionally, focusing on app improvements and feature parity with the mobile apps would have likely garnered more positive user response and loyalty.

    Existing hardened browsers and Google scrapers/proxies already cater to users seeking enhanced privacy features. By introducing its own browser and search engine, Mullvad appears to be reinventing the wheel and offering solutions for issues that have already been addressed by established players in the market. This approach raises questions about Mullvad’s overall strategy and makes it difficult for users to understand and trust their roadmap.

    Mullvad’s recent endeavors, including engaging with the European Parliament, discussing the Swedish police in their headquarters, and branching out into various features and services, have led to a perception of a lack of focus. Users may find it challenging to discern Mullvad’s overarching strategy and determine where the company’s priorities lie. This lack of clarity can undermine user trust and raise doubts about the effectiveness of their efforts.

    While Mullvad Leta and the Mullvad Browser aim to provide additional privacy features, the existing landscape of privacy-focused search engines and secure browsers raises questions about the necessity and effectiveness of these offerings. Users may argue that resources and investment could have been better utilized in areas such as server infrastructure, app improvements, and feature parity. Mullvad’s approach to expanding into various domains without a clear strategic focus may result in skepticism among users and hinder their ability to trust the company’s direction. Ultimately, users seeking privacy-focused solutions may find more comprehensive alternatives from established players in the market.

  • Section 702 and The Waning Trust In National Policy

    Section 702 and The Waning Trust In National Policy

    The veil has been lifted on the Biden administration’s startling surveillance practices, revealing a twisted narrative of how a devised national protective tool can pave the road to questionable state-sanctioned vigilance. The very foundations of America’s cherished principles of freedom and privacy waver upon this revelation, a chilling sign of the Department of Justice taking an alarming shift toward severity in aggression against American citizens.

    The innocuous intent behind Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, envisioned primarily as an ally against threats such as drug trafficking and cyberattacks, now casts a long shadow over every American’s right to digital privacy. Despite the judiciary’s defense of the tool’s merits and critical contributions to foreign security, the presiding narrative is one where unlawfully wielded power trumps principled guiding forces. The tool originally designed to protect has perverted into a potential perpetrator breaching the security lines of private citizens, a horrific twist behind closed bureaucratic doors.

    Revelations of the FBI misusing Section 702 to spy on American citizens fracture the public trust, with the unsettling picture of an increasingly Orwellian state emerging. The confessed ‘misdeployment’ by the agents creates cynicism about the prudence of extending tools that resemble powerful serpents poised to strike at the very essence of individual freedom.

    The unfolding scenario draws attention to the necessity of lawmakers reevaluating rather than blindly renewing profound legislations such as Section 702. Ignoring the glaring specter of privacy infringement does the nation a disservice, stirring roots of discord and fostering an atmosphere of mistrust. FBI agents’ recent compliance “fixes” appear as hasty solutions rather than a rooted resolution of the real crisis – leaving the civilized world pondering on the lack of comprehensive change to safeguard citizens’ constitutional rights.

    One can assert that unchecked utilization of Section 702 necessitates a shift to enforcement guided by moral principles rather than a mundane adherence to lettered law. Rather than approve unchecked leverage of surveillance tools, the Congress must recognize the need for safeguards and add prerequisite conditions — such as warrant requirements — to prevent misuse. Balanced security cannot pivot solely on national safety without glancing at personal freedom; it necessitates a clear vision that encompasses the widescreen truth delineating the Orwellian fiction from threatening reality.

  • Why We Should Reject CIA-Backed Surveillance in Our Schools

    Why We Should Reject CIA-Backed Surveillance in Our Schools

    The recent surge in school shootings has understandably led to a heightened concern for the safety of our students. As part of the solution, we are witnessing the rise of technology companies offering advanced security systems designed to prevent these tragic incidents. One such company is Gabriel, an Israeli firm specializing in school shooting prevention technologies. Their offering – panic buttons, AI cameras, and an entire suite of surveillance products – seems to be a promising tool in our collective safety efforts. However, a closer look at the company’s backers raises some alarming concerns.

    Gabriel’s technology is backed by former officials from the CIA, FBI, and Mossad, a fact that should make any privacy-conscious individual pause. The CIA and Mossad, in particular, have a long history of covert operations, human rights abuses, and the relentless pursuit of US and Israeli geopolitical interests. Their track records include instances of widespread domestic surveillance, unauthorized information collection, and exploitation of technological platforms for intelligence purposes. Given this context, it’s more than a little concerning to see such entities involved in implementing surveillance systems in our schools and communities.

    Our children’s schools are meant to be places of learning and growth, not grounds for covert intelligence operations. We’ve seen the CIA infiltrate academic institutions in the past, notably during the Cold War era, while Mossad has been implicated in extensive surveillance and cyber espionage activities targeting American citizens. Bearing in mind these agencies’ histories, can we trust them with the safety and privacy of our students?

    The ‘generous’ anonymous funding fueling Gabriel’s free installation in American schools is another point of contention. The use of “philanthropists” as a cover for covert intelligence activities is a well-documented strategy. The lack of transparency regarding the source of this funding leaves room for manipulation and hidden agendas, all under the guise of student safety.

    Given the intricate and invasive nature of Gabriel’s surveillance systems, once they are installed, they would be exceedingly difficult to remove. If history has taught us anything, it’s that intelligence agencies tend to expand the scope and scale of their operations over time, often encroaching on civil liberties in the process. We must question the wisdom of allowing a system that could easily morph from targeted security monitoring into generalized spying on our children.

    At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves: Do we truly believe that agencies like the CIA and Mossad prioritize our best interests over their own geopolitical and strategic agendas? The historical evidence suggests otherwise. Until we can be assured of complete transparency from Gabriel and independent verification of their mission and backers, it is in our best interest, and that of our children, to reject these surveillance systems.

    In the name of safety, privacy, and the preservation of our freedoms, we must demand a rigorous, independent investigation into Gabriel’s surveillance systems and their backers. Let’s ensure we are not trading the fundamental rights and freedoms of our students and communities for a false sense of security.

    Sources