Usenet SSL + VPN

[user3240]

Once again, your ignorance of basic USA laws and regulations are breathtaking. So, you've never heard of or seen a thing called a NSL? (National Security Letter, primary part of the Patriot Act). Virtually every telecom provider in the US has been operating under the provisions of this act for close to 10 years now, REQUIRES that logs be keep of every 'transaction' that occurs over their system(s). If you don't, you will get forced out of business, and many have been.

Get your head out of your behind and get real.

Then why don't Usenet service providers keep track of downloads? Many have an American presence. There is little point in trying to reason with your tinfoil hard hat. They have bigger fish to fry than trying to bust some guy downloading a TV show.

I asked you about the requirements of VPNs. Most are not located in the states and I've yet to read a specific law that requires them to log. Are you saying that a VPN in Switzerland is required to follow US Patriot Act laws? LOL

[DngrMs]

Even in the US: http://torrentfreak.com/proof-that-u...s-away-131207/

[user3240]

Even in the US: http://torrentfreak.com/proof-that-u...s-away-131207/

Beck was unable to provide proof that an ISP could tell what you are downloading from Usenet if you used SSL. The OPs original question was if he needed a VPN to download from Usenet.

Now Beck has claimed that BY LAW all VPNs must keep logs. Here is the Torrentfreak article in regards to what VPNs do NOT keep logs. Normally, I don't like Torrentfreak but they have this one right.

http://torrentfreak.com/vpn-services...dition-130302/

When Beck can't prove his case, He goes off on tangents and tries to win His arguments with deflection techniques. Beck loves to say how much He laughs at people. Does He have any idea how much people laugh at him?

[Beck38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

Now go laugh at them; then we can come visit you in one of the Super-Max prisons.

I could list all the recent Ars Technica or Wired articles as well, or give you the address to the EFF or ChillingEffects listings, or many many others, that have been listed here ad infinitum. But since your mind is closed, keep going on you present path until your ISP yanks your feed or something worse happens.

Simply stop giving out incorrect and misleading information to folks like the OP who originally asked a good question, who didn't need more stunningly wrong info that both you and others jumped on the thread with.

[user3240]

You are a sick man Beck. I've read those articles. You claimed that SSL is not safe for Usenet downloading. You then claimed that ALL VPNs keep logs. You are unable to prove your assertions so you come up with another deflection.

A Super-Max prison for downloading a TV show? LOL. Perhaps there is a Super-Max nuthouse for you.

[sandman_1]

If you are only downloading, SSL is all you need. Usenet providers do not keep logs of downloads and SSL will prevent your ISP from inspecting your downloads.

<Insert extreme laughing here>

SSL is now known to be completely broken by the use of deep packet inspection and other techniques, and has been for a fairly long time. So any ISP that wishes to put the resources to bear on it, it's cracked.

If that were true, every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be hacking Bank websites and getting account information hand over fist. SSL has it flaws but it isn't "broken".

[piercerseth]

I thought the consensus was the certificate authorities were the real weak link in the SSL chain?

Also, isn't NZBget the only client that even bothers to scrutinize the certificate? I know it has a pretty exhaustive choice of cipher suites etc.

[Beck38]

I thought the consensus was the certificate authorities were the real weak link in the SSL chain?

Uh... Yep.

What's interesting in all this back and forth, is that it goes along the same path as the same 'discussions' a year or two back. At that time, the main contention was ISP's that were either blocking or slowing down certain protocols (read: torrents) and perhaps a couple here and there usenet. Very few were talking about metadata collection, the sale (or free transfer) of that to or from whomever, for whatever purpose.

That, in fact, was the primary reason, when I switched from one provider (telco, Verizon DSL ir anyone really wants to know) to Comcast, which was well known in my corner of the country in being loose with their interpretation (if any) of so-called 'net neutrality' (or lack thereof).

So, now we're here in 2013, and the big question is Metadata. But gee, going to VPN's a few years back, to achieve some semblance of 'net neutrality', accomplished the denial of that already, two birds with one stone, so to speak.

The Big players' (from banks to internet companies to Microsoft) are getting ansy, really ansy, about internet privacy all of a sudden (see news just today). Wonder why....

My guess (just a guess!) as to 'Time' person of the year: Edward Snowden. Note I'm typing this well before the 'official' announcement.

[mrgordo]

I thought the consensus was the certificate authorities were the real weak link in the SSL chain?

Uh... Yep.

What's interesting in all this back and forth, is that it goes along the same path as the same 'discussions' a year or two back. At that time, the main contention was ISP's that were either blocking or slowing down certain protocols (read: torrents) and perhaps a couple here and there usenet. Very few were talking about metadata collection, the sale (or free transfer) of that to or from whomever, for whatever purpose.

That, in fact, was the primary reason, when I switched from one provider (telco, Verizon DSL ir anyone really wants to know) to Comcast, which was well known in my corner of the country in being loose with their interpretation (if any) of so-called 'net neutrality' (or lack thereof).

So, now we're here in 2013, and the big question is Metadata. But gee, going to VPN's a few years back, to achieve some semblance of 'net neutrality', accomplished the denial of that already, two birds with one stone, so to speak.

The Big players' (from banks to internet companies to Microsoft) are getting ansy, really ansy, about internet privacy all of a sudden (see news just today). Wonder why....

My guess (just a guess!) as to 'Time' person of the year: Edward Snowden. Note I'm typing this well before the 'official' announcement.

What's wrong with you? Do you have to fill some consummate fanboy snark quota or are you just filled with repressed rage? The OP just asked for some simple advice. Period. No reason for your garbage. Even when your replies are on point they are obfuscated by your nastiness. If you toned down the snark you might actually contribute something relevant to the forum rather than just have people ignore you.

[Damnatory]

What's wrong with you? Do you have to fill some consummate fanboy snark quota or are you just filled with repressed rage? The OP just asked for some simple advice. Period. No reason for your garbage. Even when your replies are on point they are obfuscated by your nastiness. If you toned down the snark you might actually contribute something relevant to the forum rather than just have people ignore you.

Stick around a while, your skin will thicken. This is barely scratching the surface of the snark around here.

I do actually appreciate the debate. After all, information like that is why most of us came to this forum in the first place. Honestly it's helped me to decide to go ahead and shell out for the VPN service. It's a small price for the added security. I'm just on the fence on which to go with at this point. PrivateInternetAccess looks to be decently priced, and reportedly keeps no logs at all. Any others you would suggest?