shamu726 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 VPNs are used by thousands of people every day to keep their online activities private and as long as their provider doesn’t log, the theory is that no third party will be able to track a person down from their IP address alone. Thanks to information recently posted to the ChillingEffects repository, we can now see real-life examples of VPN users avoiding costly settlement disputes with anti-piracy companies.US-based Internet service providers receive DMCA notices from movie and music companies when their customers share copyrighted material without permission.Since the ISPs are legally obliged to pass these notices on to the supposed infringers, companies that try to turn piracy into profit see this as a business opportunity.One such outfit, US-based Rightscorp, sends out DMCA notices but tags settlement offers onto the end, thus managing to request cash from an individual whose identity they do not know. While this helpfully circumvents the need to obtain a court order, as reported yesterday Comcast has been stripping the settlement offers away.Another way people avoid these kinds of demands is by using an anonymizing service such as a no-logging VPN service, such as those listed here. When these companies receive Rightscorp-style notices there is nothing they can do with them, since they do not know the identity of the user in question.While VPNs work in theory, up until now there has been little public proof that these services really do stop anti-piracy outfits in their tracks. However, thanks to DMCA notices submitted to Chilling Effects by Proxy.sh, we now have evidence that users are avoiding expensive copyright settlements by using a VPN.The notice below shows a DMCA/settlement demand from anti-piracy company CEG TEK sent on behalf of porn giant Manwin. In addition to the standard takedown text it requires the user to log into their systems and agree to a cash settlement to make a file-sharing lawsuit disappear. Of course, that’s not going to happen because the intended recipient was using a no-log VPN.After following the links and entering the username and passwords detailed above, a TorrentFreak reader sent us the following screenshots of the settlement offer itself. At this point the user is given the opportunity to enter more infringement notice details if they have them, with each adding to the total settlement amount. Once completed and following a click of the ‘continue’ button, a new page appears asking the alleged infringer to enter his personal details and select a payment method. Further settlement notices sent by CEG TEK on behalf of other copyright holders including porn outfits Brazzers (1) and Celestial (1), (2), all reveal demands for cash. Since none of these were passed onto the VPN user, none of this companies will be receiving a penny.Also of interest are several other notices sent by HBO, Viacom, Warner Bros. and NBC Universal to VPN users. While none of these ask for cash payment, these companies are partners in the ‘six strikes‘ campaign currently underway in the United States. If the individuals targeted by these notices had been using one of the participating ISPs, they would have had a ‘strike’ placed against their account.Since they were using a no-logging VPN, the notices dropped into a black hole.Source: TorrentFreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kn_andre Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Quite a Nice and Interesting Post .... Thanks for Sharing and Have a Nice Weekend ... Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 While VPNs work in theory, up until now there has been little public proof that these services really do stop anti-piracy outfits in their tracks. However, thanks to DMCA notices submitted to Chilling Effects by Proxy.sh, we now have evidence that users are avoiding expensive copyright settlements by using a VPN.Why the doubt and why wouldn't they work? If the VPN doesn't log your details or, even if it does, is not compelled to turn over those details, obviously the IP address connected with the downloader will lead only to the VPN and no further. So what's the big discovery here? That if someone doesn't have your address they can't get in touch with you to serve you a notice? Wow, what an amazing turn of events! :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbit Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Why the doubt and why wouldn't they work? If the VPN doesn't log your details or, even if it does, is not compelled to turn over those details, obviously the IP address connected with the downloader will lead only to the VPN and no further. So what's the big discovery here? That if someone doesn't have your address they can't get in touch with you to serve you a notice? Wow, what an amazing turn of events!It is an amazing turn of events, actually. We now have tangible proof that VPNs can and do provide the protection and anonymity they advertise, not just claims and selling points. That's pretty important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefa Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 It is an amazing turn of events, actually. We now have tangible proof that VPNs can and do provide the protection and anonymity they advertise, not just claims and selling points. That's pretty important.Yes very important for me anyway..I have been using an american based vpn for well over a year now..Absolutly love the service..But as some nsaners no i was always slightly concerned with there no log claims..No such worries for me now :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) It is an amazing turn of events, actually. We now have tangible proof that VPNs can and do provide the protection and anonymity they advertise, not just claims and selling points. That's pretty important.The fact that a no-log VPN would protect you was never in doubt. That's precisely what it's meant for. As far as claim verification goes, no, this doesn't provide any real proof regarding your VPN. All this article says is "Yay, no-log VPNs really work!", as if there was any doubt. Your VPN might very well claim it keeps no logs, but what proof do you have of this? How does this article help you prove your VPN is not lying?Yes very important for me anyway..I have been using an american based vpn for well over a year now..Absolutly love the service..But as some nsaners no i was always slightly concerned with there no log claims..No such worries for me now :cheers:See my comments above. Can you tell me how this article helps you prove conclusively that the American VPN you use is really not keeping any logs? Also, just because you've not received any letters so far proves nothing at all. 99% of my friends and acquaintances have never received any letters either and many of them pirate hot new heavily-tracked releases like crazy, and none of them uses a VPN.Ultimately all users can do in the absence of concrete proof regarding the VPNs they use is to have faith and trust them to keep their word regarding their security practices. If the VPNs do things properly like they claim, there's no doubt (and never was) that their users will not get into trouble. Edited December 7, 2013 by janedoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefa Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 See my comments above. Can you tell me how this article helps you prove conclusively that the American VPN you use is really not keeping any logs? Also, just because you've not received any letters so far proves nothing at all. 99% of my friends and acquaintances have never received any letters either and many of them pirate hot new heavily-tracked releases like crazy, and none of them uses a VPN.Ultimately all users can do in the absence of concrete proof regarding the VPNs they use is to have faith and trust them to keep their word regarding their security practices. If the VPNs do things properly like they claim, there's no doubt (and never was) that their users will not get into trouble.I fully accept and agree with your point and i am not arguing against it..It just makes me feel better thats all..Paranoid i guess :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 I fully accept and agree with your point and i am not arguing against it..It just makes me feel better thats all..Paranoid i guess :unsure:A certain amount of paranoia is healthy (not too much though!), which is why it's better not to sit back, relax and say things like "no such worries for me now". One never really knows... After all it's not inconceivable that even a real no-log VPN starts keeping logs one fine day due to some policy changes, and you never come to know about it till you end up facing the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbit Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 The fact that a no-log VPN would protect you was never in doubt. That's precisely what it's meant for. As far as claim verification goes, no, this doesn't provide any real proof regarding your VPN. All this article says is "Yay, no-log VPNs really work!", as if there was any doubt. Your VPN might very well claim it keeps no logs, but what proof do you have of this? How does this article help you prove your VPN is not lying?I appreciate neither your attitude nor the strident tone you took when replying to me. If that's how you interact with everyone, I suspect you're not well-liked. Furthermore, if you intend to speak to me that way again, perhaps it would be best that you not reply at all as I suffer such insolence poorly.Your attempts to refute my post were in vain because your argument is weak. You operate from the position that all claims made by VPN providers are forthright by default, and that there are no holes in their services. That might be true in your eyes, but over here in reality, very few things are precisely as they are presented. By the way, asking questions as a way of side-stepping presenting a legitimate rebuttal is transparent and a little embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flitox Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 so how long will it take for VPN providers to be banned from using CC & Paypal payments?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) I appreciate neither your attitude nor the strident tone you took when replying to me. If that's how you interact with everyone, I suspect you're not well-liked. Furthermore, if you intend to speak to me that way again, perhaps it would be best that you not reply at all as I suffer such insolence poorly.What insolence? If that's how you regularly misinterpret frank and forthright language then I suspect you are not generally well-liked either. I speak my mind and don't sugar coat my words, and so far no-one else has ever been offended because I am extremely careful not to make ad hominem attacks like you just did. I focus solely on the issue and am always willing to debate and modify my positions if I am shown to be incorrect, but I do not tolerate insolence nor twisting of facts to prove one's point either.Your attempts to refute my post were in vain because your argument is weak. You operate from the position that all claims made by VPN providers are forthright by default, and that there are no holes in their services. That might be true in your eyes, but over here in reality, very few things are precisely as they are presented. By the way, asking questions as a way of side-stepping presenting a legitimate rebuttal is transparent and a little embarrassing.I operate from the position that all claims made by VPN providers are forthright by default? What a joke! Comprehension 101 fail. Read my initial comment again, and also take a look at my next response to F3dupsk1Nup, where I clearly stated that VPN providers are not to be trusted. You are the one who hasn't bothered to respond to my actual queries, conveniently side-stepping them in favor of an unwarranted rant.Let's reiterate what you stated:It is an amazing turn of events, actually. We now have tangible proof that VPNs can and do provide the protection and anonymity they advertise, not just claims and selling points. That's pretty important.It is you who believes that "VPNs can and do provide the protection and anonymity they advertise, not just claims and selling points", and now you're actually claiming my argument is weak and trying to fob off your own comments onto me? You clearly believe that this article provides necessary and sufficient proof that VPNs are truly doing what they claim, whereas I said that that is most certainly not the case. VPNs cannot be trusted implicitly because unless we have some insider knowledge of their functioning there is no way we can conclusively prove that they are truly retaining no logs. As I said above, all we can do really is trust them and hope for the best. Now, instead of making embarrassing flip-flops why don't you stick to your original claim that I quoted immediate above and try to defend it? As I asked above and which you conveniently ignored, how does this article provide you tangible proof about your VPN's claims regarding no logs or data retention? Edited December 8, 2013 by janedoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezza Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 VPNs cannot be trusted implicitly because unless we have some insider knowledge of their functioning there is no way we can conclusively prove that they are truly retaining no logs.Perfect Privacy is a U.S. company, and Anonymous apparently used their service for hacking.When the German police grabbed the hard disk drives of Perfect Privacy in Erfurt (because of Anonymous doing DDoS) all they got was hashed passwords and pseudonyms, because these servers kept no logs.Guess this is one VPN you can trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janedoe Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 VPNs cannot be trusted implicitly because unless we have some insider knowledge of their functioning there is no way we can conclusively prove that they are truly retaining no logs.Perfect Privacy is a U.S. company, and Anonymous apparently used their service for hacking.When the German police grabbed the hard disk drives of Perfect Privacy in Erfurt (because of Anonymous doing DDoS) all they got was hashed passwords and pseudonyms, because these servers kept no logs.Guess this is one VPN you can trustExcellent, so the seizure of the hard drives provides us the proof we are seeking, but again, only about this particular VPN. That proof wouldn't have been available before the seizure, but in this instance clearly the faith of Perfect Privacy's users turned out to be justified. Thank you tezza for that apt example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ande Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 VPN Company is ussualy renting servers from all around world, servers that are being rented you are connecting to and taking servers IP as yours can be on purpose infected with malware (with or without assistence of server provider) which would allow third party to access your all information, decrypted, because malware would preform logging insted of your VPN.This is a reason why I never use USA based servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasbridge Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) VPN Company is ussualy renting servers from all around world, servers that are being rented you are connecting to and taking servers IP as yours can be on purpose infected with malware (with or without assistence of server provider) which would allow third party to access your all information, decrypted, because malware would preform logging insted of your VPN.This is a reason why I never use USA based servers.You clearly explained how malware could do the logging instead of the VPN but you did not explain why it is safer to use non-USA based servers. Do you consider USA based servers a greater target for malware attacks? Please elaborate. Thank you. Edited December 9, 2013 by rasbridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ande Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 You clearly explained how malware could do the logging instead of the VPN but you did not explain why it is safer to use non-USA based servers. Do you consider USA based servers a greater target for malware attacks? Please elaborate. Thank you.Because govt. like US can impose their dominion on their citizens and corporations, and under pretense of "national security" they have the right to do almost anything. In most cases you, as company or individual, can not refuse their request. Even if you do refuse, or delay their request, you are, by law obligated not to disclose to anyone (your clients) that you have been contacted by them. However, some EU countries are granting their citizens right to privacy and right to transparency which in the end protects businesses and clients from government involvement.Yes, every server can be infected by malware, but not every information can be legally liable and hold on court.Hope you understand it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrioNeXus Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 porn giant Manwin , porn is all about to tantalize man :ermm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts