Related: I motion that we really should stop using that advice so blanketly, and instead say “If the product is free and run by capitist entities, you’re the product.”
Don’t be bringing your politics into this. Communist, socialist, anarchist, etc, entities are all capable of running a honeypot VPN service. Even if the motive isn’t directly monetization, the user is still the product.
Also, even in the FOSS world, you have to be wary of services with ongoing costs (thinking of things that have a server side component, not software that you can run purely locally) that are offered for free.
I will start out by saying I was not the person who downvoted you, and while I also agree that anyone can run a honeypot obviously, that phrase IS inherently pro-corporation and capitalist. If you wrote out in it’s entirely what it means, it’s arguing that you can’t trust anyone with your security unless they’re a business you’re paying. Which is objectively encouraging people to side with capitalism over the open source and community based internet. Which is really the only reason why I point out the flaw in that phrase. The phrase is as inherently political as privacy itself is.
What I’m saying is one step more cynical that that. I’m saying is that you can’t fully trust anyone with your privacy. The best you can do is try to determine who will treat you best based on the motivation involved. VPNs take resources to operate. In our current society that means money, but even in the absence of money, there’s labour, hardware, and electricity costs that go into making it work. Expecting someone to just eat that cost in perpetuity is unreasonable. If the cost is being covered by the users, there is much less incentive for the operator to do anything shady with the data they have access to.
Laughs in FOSS
Related: I motion that we really should stop using that advice so blanketly, and instead say “If the product is free and run by capitist entities, you’re the product.”
Don’t be bringing your politics into this. Communist, socialist, anarchist, etc, entities are all capable of running a honeypot VPN service. Even if the motive isn’t directly monetization, the user is still the product.
Also, even in the FOSS world, you have to be wary of services with ongoing costs (thinking of things that have a server side component, not software that you can run purely locally) that are offered for free.
I will start out by saying I was not the person who downvoted you, and while I also agree that anyone can run a honeypot obviously, that phrase IS inherently pro-corporation and capitalist. If you wrote out in it’s entirely what it means, it’s arguing that you can’t trust anyone with your security unless they’re a business you’re paying. Which is objectively encouraging people to side with capitalism over the open source and community based internet. Which is really the only reason why I point out the flaw in that phrase. The phrase is as inherently political as privacy itself is.
What I’m saying is one step more cynical that that. I’m saying is that you can’t fully trust anyone with your privacy. The best you can do is try to determine who will treat you best based on the motivation involved. VPNs take resources to operate. In our current society that means money, but even in the absence of money, there’s labour, hardware, and electricity costs that go into making it work. Expecting someone to just eat that cost in perpetuity is unreasonable. If the cost is being covered by the users, there is much less incentive for the operator to do anything shady with the data they have access to.