Addition of reponsible marketing section #1538
No reviewers
Labels
No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1538
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "pr-reponsible_vpn_marketing"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Addition of a responsible marketing section. These things often come up in discussion on the forums, and in other PRs.
Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!
Built with commit
88c932c043
https://deploy-preview-1538--privacytools-io.netlify.com
Would you mind including the links to what you mainly change in your PR comment or somewhere, so they don't need to be digged out separately?
LGTM, while I also see every VPN provider failing this criteria at least when I am the judge.
@ -128,0 +136,4 @@
</li>
<p>Must not have any marketing which is irresponsible:</p>
<ul>
<li>Making guarantees of protecting anonymity 100%. When someone makes a claim that something is 100% it means there is no certainty for failure. We know users can quite easily deanonymize themselves in a number of ways, eg:</li>
I think Mullvad fails here.
I see ProtonVPN also failing here
I would also question
I am not certain about IVPN here either.
https://www.ivpn.net/what-is-a-vpn also seems to give an impression that the unencrypted http traffic gets magically encrypted after enabling IVPN.
https://www.ivpn.net/wifi-protection also seems a bit of scaremongering to me.
https://www.ivpn.net/dns-server says nothing about DoT/DoH which doesn't particularly surprise me and I wouldn't have expected it.
@ -128,0 +136,4 @@
</li>
<p>Must not have any marketing which is irresponsible:</p>
<ul>
<li>Making guarantees of protecting anonymity 100%. When someone makes a claim that something is 100% it means there is no certainty for failure. We know users can quite easily deanonymize themselves in a number of ways, eg:</li>
In the case of
Mullvad:
I don't think that is inaccurate at all. What they are talking about is eavesdropping on a shared WiFi access point. The word "even" is should probably be omitted.
ProtonVPN:
Once again it talks about shared networks and untrusted Internet connections. This is the whole reason you'd use a VPN, ie to prevent your ISP from seeing what you're doing, or local administrator.
IVPN:
That's not totally wrong either. If I am on a VPN server with 1000 other users, it's certainly more anonymous than if I connected directly.
The thing none of these providers claim, is that their product will provide 100% anonymity. I have no problems with VPN providers claiming to keep you secure on untrusted networks.
This is assuming you trust their network to not eavesdrop on you. There is no substitution for E2EE and TLS in that case.
@ -128,0 +138,4 @@
<ul>
<li>Making guarantees of protecting anonymity 100%. When someone makes a claim that something is 100% it means there is no certainty for failure. We know users can quite easily deanonymize themselves in a number of ways, eg:</li>
<ul>
<li>Reusing personal information eg. (email accounts, unique pseudonyms etc) that they accessed without anonymity software (Tor, VPN etc)</li>
Issue of interest: https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1186
@ -128,0 +138,4 @@
<ul>
<li>Making guarantees of protecting anonymity 100%. When someone makes a claim that something is 100% it means there is no certainty for failure. We know users can quite easily deanonymize themselves in a number of ways, eg:</li>
<ul>
<li>Reusing personal information eg. (email accounts, unique pseudonyms etc) that they accessed without anonymity software (Tor, VPN etc)</li>
Removed mention of Matomo specifically. Realistically VPN providers are going to want to know what is going on with their website, so I feel we do have to offer them some alternative to Google Analytics. Currently none of our providers use third party analytics.
Nice, I’m glad this has been added to the criteria, thanks @dngray.
I’m reminded of https://www.ivpn.net/ethics
I like these changes.