Woman's alleged search history exposed in court

[Max]

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/natasha-darcy-googled-how-to-commit-murder-in-months-before-she-allegedly-murdered-partner-court-hears/news-story/64455a86b372906b9a297a0319426d8b

Woman allegedly googled "how to commit murder" along with other things
which were exposed in a court case where she is accused of murdering her
partner.

How is search history obtained by police/prosecutors? Google uses SSL
so I would have thought that search terms would not be recorded in the
meta-data that ISPs are required to retain.

The only way is the search history retained by the browser. So has this
woman stupidly not used an Incognito/Private browser window to make
these alleged searches?

[Sylvia Else]

If would be obtained from the computer on site, or from Google. A search
warrant would be required, and would no doubt easily be obtained.

Sylvia

[Peter Jason]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:38:15 +1100, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
wrote:

Would the woman be informed by the police, or Google, or the Tax
office that such an investigation is proceeding? Is the court order
obtained secretly?

[News 2021]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:37:27 +1100, Peter Jason scribed:

No & Yes.
She'd know abut any search of equipment in her possessin when they turned
up with the search warrant, unless her gear was inspected for some other
reason.

[Max]

Would she have a chance to quickly run to the computer and erase
browsing history?

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Maybe. It depends on the wording of the search warrant, and how cluey
the crim is.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...

[Rex Libris]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:37:27 +1100

Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:

> Would the woman be informed by the police, or Google,

Google always inform the person involved.

https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en

[Rex Libris]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:54:10 +1100
Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:

> Would she have a chance to quickly run to the computer and erase
> browsing history?

Pointless, Google have a copy. Even if she deletes it, remains on
Google servers for an unspecified time (Google will not say how long.)

Not all information will be available, the longer it takes for Google
to respond to any valid court order.

[Rex Libris]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:38:15 +1100

Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

> If would be obtained from the computer on site, or from Google. A
> search warrant would be required, and would no doubt easily be
> obtained.

Not so easy to serve on Google, if you are outside U$A.For serving legal
documents on Google. https://is.gd/Dvw8fj

If Law Enforcement are involved,   Legal process
for user data requests FAQs https://is.gd/GqaAL2

[Dechucka]

Depends on the jurisdiction from your cite

[Rex Libris]

Possibly, I may have missed that. I did notice however where
prohibited by law, Google will not notify you.

[Rod Speed]

"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:s43940$epa$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Corse not and its easy to recover that.

[Sylvia Else]

It can be served on Google Australia Pty.

Sylvia

[Rex Libris]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 21:36:30 +1100

Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 01-Apr-21 2:19 pm, Rex Libris wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 19:38:15 +1100
> > Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> If would be obtained from the computer on site, or from Google. A
> >> search warrant would be required, and would no doubt easily be
> >> obtained.
> >
> >
> > Not so easy to serve on Google, if you are outside U$A.For serving
> > legal documents on Google. https://is.gd/Dvw8fj
> >
> > If Law Enforcement are involved,   Legal process
> > for user data requests FAQs https://is.gd/GqaAL2
> >
> >
>
> It can be served on Google Australia Pty.


>
> Sylvia

They need to be served on Google Ireland, in some cases may be served
by FedEx/UPS etc to Google U$A.Or can be personally delivered to Google
at Mountain View.

https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/6151275?hl=en

[News 2021]

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 12:54:10 +1100, Max scribed:

> Would she have a chance to quickly run to the computer and erase
> browsing history?

FYI, there are some browsers that can be set to clear all cookies and/or
search history on exit. Supposedly. All this would have been know to
anyone who bother to at least read the fine print and/or ask "what's the
catch?".

[Dechucka]

The question is are there copies of the search history on the search
engine servers. Easy enough to get rid of histories and cookies and
clean the computer with a drive wiper, Not sure if the real smarties
could unclean it. Would it delete the MFT?

[News 2021]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:33:47 +1100, Dechucka scribed:

> On 2/04/2021 11:51 am, News 2021 wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 12:54:10 +1100, Max scribed:
>>
>>
>>> Would she have a chance to quickly run to the computer and erase
>>> browsing history?
>>
>> FYI, there are some browsers that can be set to clear all cookies
>> and/or search history on exit. Supposedly. All this would have been
>> know to anyone who bother to at least read the fine print and/or ask
>> "what's the catch?".
>>
> The question is are there copies of the search history on the search
> engine servers.

Hint, use a search engine that doesn't charge a fee by using you data.
See point above about reading the fone print.

[Dechucka]

It isn't a matter of using my data the question is storage of data.

[News 2021]

On Fri, 02 Apr 2021 15:37:33 +1100, Dechucka scribed:

>> See point above about reading the f1ne print.

Hint, use a search engine that doesn't charge a fee by using you data.

See point above about reading the fine print

[Frank Slootweg]

Aside from the already mentioned jurisdiction(s) aspect, it depends on
whether or not there *is* such an animal as a (Google) "account holder".

I.e. especially on a PC, you can use Google - the search engine, not
the company - without a Google Account. In that case Google might have
'your' browsing history, but has no way of knowing *who* 'you' are,
without information from your ISP(s), derived from your IP address(es).
In such a case, I think it's unlikely that Google will inform you. Maybe
- depending on their rules and jurisdiction(s) -, your ISP(s) will
inform you.

[Peter Jason]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:33:47 +1100, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

One protection is to store sensitive stuff on a thumb drive; this can
be unplugged and swallowed in an instant, especially if plugged into a
USB3 extension cable. They're very small at present.....
https://www.pccasegear.com/products/42470/sandisk-ultra-fit-usb-3-1-flash-drive-16gb
To save frigging around at the USB hub, just have a USB3 extension
cord plugged into it......
https://www.pccasegear.com/products/38491/astrotek-usb-3-0-extension-cable-1m

Bitlocker everything, of course. Can the Feds get past Bitlocker?

[Petzl]

On 2 Apr 2021 15:14:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

VPN's are cheap now mines $30 a year, all data encrypted to and from
your computer, I believe they area good security feature.
Although ISP's do try to block/Restrict access of known VPN IP's which
change. Big problem is to many naive user won't run a virus/malware
program on their computer/device which (when hacked) also make them a
target for blocklists. targets, Windows Defender is so far a good
option for Windows PC's (you have paid for it with the operating
system.).
--
Petzl
Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years,
and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
"The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
the religion of Christ."

[Max]

Can you use a no-log VPN like Proton VPN? Then use an incognito/private
browser window.

[Max]

On 3/04/2021 9:48 am, Petzl wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2021 15:14:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Rex Libris <king...@bookworm.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:37:27 +1100
>>> Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would the woman be informed by the police, or Google,
>>>
>>>
>>> Google always inform the person involved.
>>>
>>> https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en
>>
>> Aside from the already mentioned jurisdiction(s) aspect, it depends on
>> whether or not there *is* such an animal as a (Google) "account holder".
>>
>> I.e. especially on a PC, you can use Google - the search engine, not
>> the company - without a Google Account. In that case Google might have
>> 'your' browsing history, but has no way of knowing *who* 'you' are,
>> without information from your ISP(s), derived from your IP address(es).
>> In such a case, I think it's unlikely that Google will inform you. Maybe
>> - depending on their rules and jurisdiction(s) -, your ISP(s) will
>> inform you.
>
> VPN's are cheap now mines $30 a year, all data encrypted to and from
> your computer, I believe they area good security feature.

Does the VPN keep logs? If they do then they are of no help.

[Rod Speed]

"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:s48rkd$1747$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 3/04/2021 9:48 am, Petzl wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2021 15:14:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rex Libris <king...@bookworm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:37:27 +1100
>>>> Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Would the woman be informed by the police, or Google,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Google always inform the person involved.
>>>>
>>>> https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en
>>>
>>> Aside from the already mentioned jurisdiction(s) aspect, it depends on
>>> whether or not there *is* such an animal as a (Google) "account holder".
>>>
>>> I.e. especially on a PC, you can use Google - the search engine, not
>>> the company - without a Google Account. In that case Google might have
>>> 'your' browsing history, but has no way of knowing *who* 'you' are,
>>> without information from your ISP(s), derived from your IP address(es).
>>> In such a case, I think it's unlikely that Google will inform you. Maybe
>>> - depending on their rules and jurisdiction(s) -, your ISP(s) will
>>> inform you.
>>
>> VPN's are cheap now mines $30 a year, all data encrypted to and from
>> your computer, I believe they area good security feature.

> Does the VPN keep logs?

Some explicitly don’t.

[keithr0]

If you really have to Google "How to commit a murder " (a pretty stupid
idea in the first place) the best idea is to buy the cheapest working
laptop from Cash Converters or your local pawn shop for cash. Then head
to a shopping centre/airport/Starbucks or anywhere where there is free
Wifi making sure that you are out of sight of CCTV. Google away for all
you are worth and then, when you are done, deep six the laptop.

At least that's what I always do :)

[Petzl]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:40:44 +1100, Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:

>On 3/04/2021 9:48 am, Petzl wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2021 15:14:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rex Libris <king...@bookworm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:37:27 +1100
>>>> Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Would the woman be informed by the police, or Google,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Google always inform the person involved.
>>>>
>>>> https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en
>>>
>>> Aside from the already mentioned jurisdiction(s) aspect, it depends on
>>> whether or not there *is* such an animal as a (Google) "account holder".
>>>
>>> I.e. especially on a PC, you can use Google - the search engine, not
>>> the company - without a Google Account. In that case Google might have
>>> 'your' browsing history, but has no way of knowing *who* 'you' are,
>>> without information from your ISP(s), derived from your IP address(es).
>>> In such a case, I think it's unlikely that Google will inform you. Maybe
>>> - depending on their rules and jurisdiction(s) -, your ISP(s) will
>>> inform you.
>>
>> VPN's are cheap now mines $30 a year, all data encrypted to and from
>> your computer, I believe they area good security feature.
>
>Does the VPN keep logs? If they do then they are of no help.
>

They claim they do not keep logs, Germany they are illegal if they do
Mine P.I.A has defeted the FBI twice so far in requring them to log.

>
>
>> Although ISP's do try to block/Restrict access of known VPN IP's which
>> change. Big problem is to many naive user won't run a virus/malware
>> program on their computer/device which (when hacked) also make them a
>> target for blocklists. targets, Windows Defender is so far a good
>> option for Windows PC's (you have paid for it with the operating
>> system.).
>>

[Petzl]

Their free plan has 3 servers and sloooow
basic is 80 pounds
Check out the ins and outs
Mine I can for a extra US$30 per year get a dedicated IP but its IP
address is in Melbourne, which is no good to me. I need a Sydney IP or
things like bank, Cayman Islands. Putin get a hernia.

[keithr0]

On 3/04/2021 8:46 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:33:47 +1100, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/04/2021 11:51 am, News 2021 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 12:54:10 +1100, Max scribed:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Would she have a chance to quickly run to the computer and erase
>>>> browsing history?
>>>
>>> FYI, there are some browsers that can be set to clear all cookies and/or
>>> search history on exit. Supposedly. All this would have been know to
>>> anyone who bother to at least read the fine print and/or ask "what's the
>>> catch?".
>>>
>> The question is are there copies of the search history on the search
>> engine servers. Easy enough to get rid of histories and cookies and
>> clean the computer with a drive wiper, Not sure if the real smarties
>> could unclean it. Would it delete the MFT?
>
> One protection is to store sensitive stuff on a thumb drive; this can
> be unplugged and swallowed in an instant, especially if plugged into a
> USB3 extension cable. They're very small at present.....
> https://www.pccasegear.com/products/42470/sandisk-ultra-fit-usb-3-1-flash-drive-16gb

Try a microSD card in an adaptor, you could hide one of those just about
anywhere.

[Max]

Do you mean in Germany they are not allowed to keep logs?

[News 2021]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:34:32 +0800, Max scribed:

>> They claim they do not keep logs, Germany they are illegal if they do
>> Mine P.I.A has defeted the FBI twice so far in requring them to log.
>>
>>
> Do you mean in Germany they are not allowed to keep logs?

No, the VPN company PIA has twice demonstrated, in court, that they have
no logs they can supply. Except how the login was paid for.

[Rex Libris]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:40:44 +1100

Max <m...@val.morgan> wrote:

> Does the VPN keep logs? If they do then they are of no help.

Many do, some claim not to, but how to believe.

And Express VPN a bit dicey, an investigation into them fails to find
enough information about the owners, or their policies. Treat them
with great suspicion.

[Rex Libris]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 17:08:43 +1100
Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years,
> and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
> "The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
> Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
> the religion of Christ."

Forced conversion, murders, and tortures all made that possible.
Nothing voluntary. So much for a loving Christ.

[Max]

Is Proton the best? It looks pretty good. Seems to be used by journalists.

[Max]

You can make a bootable USB stick which has a version of Linux on it
whereby nothing is ever written to the USB stick or any hard drive on
the computer. The only thing that happens is in the RAM which is wiped
when you turn the computer off.

Simply boot with one of these, use a no-log VPN, and do whatever you
want on the internet.

[keithr0]

If you want to believe that, go ahead.

[Max]

What else can you do? By your logic, you would never leave the house
for fear of being run over.

[Petzl]

Not allowed to keep logs

[Petzl]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 07:03:42 -0000 (UTC), News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

But they select your IP randomly from 10's or maybe 100's of thousands
of IP's each time you log in/on

[Frank Slootweg]

keithr0 <us...@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/04/2021 8:46 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:33:47 +1100, Dechucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/04/2021 11:51 am, News 2021 wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 12:54:10 +1100, Max scribed:
> >>>
> >>>> Would she have a chance to quickly run to the computer and erase
> >>>> browsing history?
> >>>
> >>> FYI, there are some browsers that can be set to clear all cookies and/or
> >>> search history on exit. Supposedly. All this would have been know to
> >>> anyone who bother to at least read the fine print and/or ask "what's the
> >>> catch?".
> >>>
> >> The question is are there copies of the search history on the search
> >> engine servers. Easy enough to get rid of histories and cookies and
> >> clean the computer with a drive wiper, Not sure if the real smarties
> >> could unclean it. Would it delete the MFT?
> >
> > One protection is to store sensitive stuff on a thumb drive; this can
> > be unplugged and swallowed in an instant, especially if plugged into a
> > USB3 extension cable. They're very small at present.....
> > https://www.pccasegear.com/products/42470/sandisk-ultra-fit-usb-3-1-flash-drive-16gb
>
> Try a microSD card in an adaptor, you could hide one of those just about
> anywhere.

You've been looking at my laptop again, haven't you!?

Note to self: <gargle> Next time remove the microSD card from the
adaptor before swallowing it! </gargle>

[...]

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Maybe because they give them all to the NSA.

Certainly you couldn't trust any VPN operator in Aus because
they're required to secretly grant whatever access is requested by
security services.

But back to PIA, I thought having the former Mt. Gox CEO involved
looked bad enough, as he came out looking absolutely gutless (at
best) in the documentary I saw about Mt. Gox. Now I see they've
been sold to "Kape Technologies", whose CEO and co-founder is a
former Israeli intelligence officer who worked for Israel's
equivalent of the NSA. Plus they also have a long history of making
malware products.

https://restoreprivacy.com/private-internet-access-kape-crossrider/
https://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-kape-technologies-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-parent-company-of-cyberghost-vpn/

Even if a VPN provider looks to be run by privacy saints I wouldn't
trust them because there's just no way to know what goes on in
their server room. But when they look THIS BAD, well it's just
silly.

If you do want to do some untracable browsing, free WiFi is a good
option, accessed from inside a car parked out the back of the
building where it is offered. You want to be using a WiFi interface
where the MAC address can be changed each time, otherwise it could
potentially be a give-away. Boot from a live Linux distro or
something like Tiny Core Linux which always stores user-data in RAM
and can be easily booted to a clean default state.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:34:32 +0800, Max scribed:
>>
>>>> They claim they do not keep logs, Germany they are illegal if they do
>>>> Mine P.I.A has defeted the FBI twice so far in requring them to log.
>>>>
>>> Do you mean in Germany they are not allowed to keep logs?
>>
>> No, the VPN company PIA has twice demonstrated, in court, that they have
>> no logs they can supply.
>
> Maybe because they give them all to the NSA.
>
> Certainly you couldn't trust any VPN operator in Aus because
> they're required to secretly grant whatever access is requested by
> security services.
>
> But back to PIA, I thought having the former Mt. Gox CEO involved
> looked bad enough, as he came out looking absolutely gutless (at
> best) in the documentary I saw about Mt. Gox. Now I see they've
> been sold to "Kape Technologies", whose CEO and co-founder is a
> former Israeli intelligence officer who worked for Israel's
> equivalent of the NSA. Plus they also have a long history of making
> malware products.
>
> https://restoreprivacy.com/private-internet-access-kape-crossrider/
> https://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-kape-technologies-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-parent-company-of-cyberghost-vpn/

Oh and Kape Technologies are a UK company (based in the Isle of Man
apparantly), so subject to UK law, not German law:
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/KAPE/kape-technologies-plc/company-page

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:s4aqpm$peu$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Trouble with that approach is that its trivial
to work out that it was your car parked there.

[Max]

Same problem with going into the McDonalds or shopping centre or
wherever - there is CCTV.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>

>> If you do want to do some untracable browsing, free WiFi is a good
>> option, accessed from inside a car parked out the back of the
>> building where it is offered. You want to be using a WiFi interface
>> where the MAC address can be changed each time, otherwise it could
>> potentially be a give-away. Boot from a live Linux distro or
>> something like Tiny Core Linux which always stores user-data in RAM
>> and can be easily booted to a clean default state.
>
> Trouble with that approach is that its trivial
> to work out that it was your car parked there.

You want to do it in a small country town where there aren't
traffic cameras following you I suppose. Easy for me.

[Rod Speed]

"Max" <m...@val.morgan> wrote in message news:s4b5fb$1f9$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Yeah, even our main street has full CCTV coverage.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4b8q7$16ev$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Its not just traffic cameras, our country town main
street has full CCTV coverage down to the cop shop.
The smaller ones don’t have any library.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
> news:s4b8q7$16ev$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> If you do want to do some untracable browsing, free WiFi is a good
>>>> option, accessed from inside a car parked out the back of the
>>>> building where it is offered. You want to be using a WiFi interface
>>>> where the MAC address can be changed each time, otherwise it could
>>>> potentially be a give-away. Boot from a live Linux distro or
>>>> something like Tiny Core Linux which always stores user-data in RAM
>>>> and can be easily booted to a clean default state.
>>>
>>> Trouble with that approach is that its trivial
>>> to work out that it was your car parked there.
>
>> You want to do it in a small country town where there aren't
>> traffic cameras following you I suppose. Easy for me.
>
> Its not just traffic cameras, our country town main
> street has full CCTV coverage down to the cop shop.

I'm not sure what sort of state surveillance has been set up where
you are, but in the country towns I know that CCTV would be
independent for each store, so the cops would have to ask the
corresponding store owner to view their footage. If they know
which store captured you on CCTV, then they already know you
were there anyway, so the battle is already lost.

The only way the system you're describing would work is if there
was a Chinese-style police CCTV network automatically tracking
your location wherever you go.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4dbss$1ujb$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:s4b8q7$16ev$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> If you do want to do some untracable browsing, free WiFi is a good
>>>>> option, accessed from inside a car parked out the back of the
>>>>> building where it is offered. You want to be using a WiFi interface
>>>>> where the MAC address can be changed each time, otherwise it could
>>>>> potentially be a give-away. Boot from a live Linux distro or
>>>>> something like Tiny Core Linux which always stores user-data in RAM
>>>>> and can be easily booted to a clean default state.
>>>>
>>>> Trouble with that approach is that its trivial
>>>> to work out that it was your car parked there.
>>
>>> You want to do it in a small country town where there aren't
>>> traffic cameras following you I suppose. Easy for me.
>>
>> Its not just traffic cameras, our country town main
>> street has full CCTV coverage down to the cop shop.

> I'm not sure what sort of state surveillance
> has been set up where you are,

It isnt state surveillance, it was done by the council after a
number of physical assaults in the main street at night etc.

> but in the country towns I know that CCTV
> would be independent for each store,

We have that here too.

> so the cops would have to ask the corresponding
> store owner to view their footage.

The main street footage all goes to the copshop live.

> If they know which store captured you on CCTV, then they already
> know you were there anyway, so the battle is already lost.

That’s not the case if they have worked out that someone
had used the library free wifi to do something nefarious
and were wanting to work out who it was who did that.

> The only way the system you're describing would work
> is if there was a Chinese-style police CCTV network
> automatically tracking your location wherever you go.

The current system would be able to work out who did it fine.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

I'd call that state surveillance, but it's academic. Point is that
many towns don't have anything like that.

>> If they know which store captured you on CCTV, then they already
>> know you were there anyway, so the battle is already lost.
>

> That?s not the case if they have worked out that someone

> had used the library free wifi to do something nefarious
> and were wanting to work out who it was who did that.
>
>> The only way the system you're describing would work
>> is if there was a Chinese-style police CCTV network
>> automatically tracking your location wherever you go.
>
> The current system would be able to work out who did it fine.

Nonsense, I'm sure people search things like "how to commit murder"
all the time. They're not going to track down the location and then
identity of every single searcher in the hope that one will turn
out to be their suspect. Unless, as in China, the system is
designed to do all that automatically for them.

Of course if they did something self-identifying like log into an
online account, then that's different. But you don't need to do
that just to research a topic on the web.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4dqva$11gc$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Nope.

> I'm sure people search things like "how to commit murder"
> all the time. They're not going to track down the location
> and then identity of every single searcher in the hope that
> one will turn out to be their suspect.

Its done the other way. Someone ends up dead, they
consider who might well be the one who did it, usually
starting with those associated with the one who ended
up dead. They then see who has a record of doing a
search which looks at the mo that was used etc.

> Unless, as in China, the system is designed
> to do all that automatically for them.

That isnt even possible.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Yes, exactly, and if the murderer did their research at a free
WiFi hotspot in the way I described, then there wouldn't be a
record. Except if the cops intensely investigated every single
IP address from which any relevant browsing took place within
the last few days/weeks/months (bound to be many different
people), which is silly.

[News 2021]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 04:50:34 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

> Yes, exactly, and if the murderer did their research at a free WiFi
> hotspot in the way I described, then there wouldn't be a record. Except
> if the cops intensely investigated every single IP address from which
> any relevant browsing took place within the last few days/weeks/months
> (bound to be many different people), which is silly.

The bit you left out is not to do it at your local/regular place with
free wifi place, but then again something odd may get them to check cctv.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4e4up$996$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Corse there is a record with that free wifi.

> Except if the cops intensely investigated every single
> IP address from which any relevant browsing took
> place within the last few days/weeks/months (bound
> to be many different people), which is silly.

Yes, but when they have decided that one or two
individuals are the likely perp and have no evidence
that it was them that they can present in a trial, they
are free to track where their mobiles have been and
then check the records at the various free wifis and
see if they can find any evidence of them searching
there.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Not of who'se using it (besides MAC address, which I suggested they
change beforehand).

>> Except if the cops intensely investigated every single
>> IP address from which any relevant browsing took
>> place within the last few days/weeks/months (bound
>> to be many different people), which is silly.
>
> Yes, but when they have decided that one or two
> individuals are the likely perp and have no evidence
> that it was them that they can present in a trial, they
> are free to track where their mobiles have been and
> then check the records at the various free wifis and
> see if they can find any evidence of them searching
> there.

Yes, so turn off your mobile. I don't use one anyway.

[Max]

Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> Wrote in message:r
> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message > news:s4dbss$1ujb$1...@gioia.aioe.org...>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message>>> news:s4b8q7$16ev$1...@gioia.aioe.org...>>>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message>>>>>>>>>>>> If you do want to do some untracable browsing, free WiFi is a good>>>>>> option, accessed from inside a car parked out the back of the>>>>>> building where it is offered. You want to be using a WiFi interface>>>>>> where the MAC address can be changed each time, otherwise it could>>>>>> potentially be a give-away. Boot from a live Linux distro or>>>>>> something like Tiny Core Linux which always stores user-data in RAM>>>>>> and can be easily booted to a clean default state.>>>>>>>>>> Trouble with that approach is that its trivial>>>>> to work out that it was your car parked there.>>>>>>> You want to do it in a small country town where there aren't>>>> traffic cameras following you I suppose. Easy for me.>>>>>> Its not just traffic cameras, our country town main>>> street has full CCTV coverage down to the cop shop.> >> I'm not sure what sort of state surveillance>> has been set up where you are,> > It isnt state surveillance, it was done by the council after a> number of physical assaults in the main street at night etc.> >> but in the country towns I know that CCTV>> would be independent for each store,> > We have that here too.> >> so the cops would have to ask the corresponding>> store owner to view their footage.> > The main street footage all goes to the copshop live.I'd call that state surveillance, but it's academic. Point is thatmany towns don't have anything like that.>> If they know which store captured you on CCTV, then they already>> know you were there anyway, so the battle is already lost.> > That?s not the case if they have worked out that someone> had used the library free wifi to do something nefarious> and were wanting to work out who it was who did that.> >> The only way the system you're describing would work>> is if there was a Chinese-style police CCTV network>> automatically tracking your location wherever you go.> > The current system would be able to work out who did it fine. Nonsense, I'm sure people search things like "how to commit murder"all the time. They're not going to track down the location and thenidentity of every single searcher in the hope that one will turnout to be their suspect. Unless, as in China, the system isdesigned to do all that automatically for them.Of course if they did something self-identifying like log into anonline account, then that's different. But you don't need to dothat just to research a topic on the web.-- __ __#_ < |\| |< _#

---------------------------------------

It's more a case of someone doing something nefarious online and
the police having the IP address of that activity.

If they can then pin point that IP address to a McDonalds or
library at a specific time they would then look at
CCTV.


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4g16d$1oen$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Makes it even easier for them to check because
they only have to check the time when its off.

> I don't use one anyway.

Hardly anyone else is that stupid.

[keithr0]

Then just leave it at home - simples.

>> I don't use one anyway.
>
> Hardly anyone else is that stupid.

Nowhere near as stupid as the zombies who can't go two minutes without
checking their phone.

[Dechucka]

snip

> Nowhere near as stupid as the zombies who can't go two minutes without
> checking their phone.

My phone has this feature where an alarm or sound goes off when
something happens. You and other people should use this feature.
I need my phone on 24/7 but most people don't.

[Rod Speed]

"keithr0" <us...@account.invalid> wrote in message
news:id2f5d...@mid.individual.net...

Still trivial to check the free wifi CCTVs for the perps.

>>> I don't use one anyway.
>>
>> Hardly anyone else is that stupid.
>
> Nowhere near as stupid as the zombies who can't go two minutes without
> checking their phone.

Hardly anyone is that stupid. Most just have one and
use it when they need to or when an incoming call
or text shows up etc. Much more convenient to have
it work where ever you are instead of just at home.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Yes maybe it's possible for the cops to catalogue the IP addresses
of all the free wifi hotspots in the country, then launch into
action whenever there's a murder, scouring the metadata for any
murder-related searches, and then scrambling cops statewide to
collect CCTV footage from each location. All in the hope that a
CCTV camera happened to be pointing at the murder's car, preferably
from an angle where the number-plate is visible, and still only
really 100% if the car's driver can be seen inside.

Somehow that doesn't seem "trivial" to me though. Especially when
the searching was done from a small country town where good CCTV
footage is unlikely to be available anyway.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4io8p$ndr$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Doesn’t have to be the country with most perps.

> then launch into action whenever there's a murder,
> scouring the metadata for any murder-related
> searches, and then scrambling cops statewide
> to collect CCTV footage from each location.

Like I said previously, you have that backwards.

What they actually do is decide that a couple
of individuals are likely candidates for a particular
murder and then check which free wifis have
CCTV of those individuals using those free wifis
and then check the browsing history on those
and see if that matches the time those individuals
were there.

> All in the hope that a CCTV camera happened
> to be pointing at the murder's car, preferably
> from an angle where the number-plate is visible,

Doesn’t have to be the number plate.

> and still only really 100% if the
> car's driver can be seen inside.

Doesn’t need to be anything like 100%

> Somehow that doesn't seem "trivial" to me though.

But then you are too stupid to have a mobile phone.

> Especially when the searching was done from
> a small country town where good CCTV footage
> is unlikely to be available anyway.

More mindless bullshit.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

> Doesn?t have to be the country with most perps.

Nonsense, people can travel all over the place. I used to regularly
use the free WiFi while visiting a town over 100Km away, without a
mobile phone tracking my journey there either.

>> then launch into action whenever there's a murder,
>> scouring the metadata for any murder-related
>> searches, and then scrambling cops statewide
>> to collect CCTV footage from each location.
>
> Like I said previously, you have that backwards.
>
> What they actually do is decide that a couple
> of individuals are likely candidates for a particular
> murder and then check which free wifis have
> CCTV of those individuals using those free wifis
> and then check the browsing history on those
> and see if that matches the time those individuals
> were there.

That's even harder! With your way they've got to check every single
free WiFi site's CCTV in case one of their suspects appears on it.
With my way they at least narrowed down the number of sites to
check by looking at the metadata first (though that's assuming they
have that capability).

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4jpai$1vj3$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Yes they can, but few bother to do that when plotting a murder.

> I used to regularly use the free WiFi while visiting a town over 100Km
> away,

But few bother to do that just to research a murder.

>>> then launch into action whenever there's a murder,
>>> scouring the metadata for any murder-related
>>> searches, and then scrambling cops statewide
>>> to collect CCTV footage from each location.
>>
>> Like I said previously, you have that backwards.
>>
>> What they actually do is decide that a couple
>> of individuals are likely candidates for a particular
>> murder and then check which free wifis have
>> CCTV of those individuals using those free wifis
>> and then check the browsing history on those
>> and see if that matches the time those individuals
>> were there.

> That's even harder!

Bullshit it is.

> With your way they've got to check every single free WiFi
> site's CCTV in case one of their suspects appears on it.

Trivial to do with the small country towns you keep mindlessly
rabbiting on about which most perps don’t actually bother with.

> With my way they at least narrowed down the number
> of sites to check by looking at the metadata first

Pity about the number of those in the country, stupid.

> (though that's assuming they have that capability).

Corse they do.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Oh right we're just talking about lazy murderers. Well they'd just
do the searching at home on the couch like the woman this thread is
about probably did, so there's no helping them.

>>>> then launch into action whenever there's a murder,
>>>> scouring the metadata for any murder-related
>>>> searches, and then scrambling cops statewide
>>>> to collect CCTV footage from each location.
>>>
>>> Like I said previously, you have that backwards.
>>>
>>> What they actually do is decide that a couple
>>> of individuals are likely candidates for a particular
>>> murder and then check which free wifis have
>>> CCTV of those individuals using those free wifis
>>> and then check the browsing history on those
>>> and see if that matches the time those individuals
>>> were there.
>
>> That's even harder!
>
> Bullshit it is.
>
>> With your way they've got to check every single free WiFi
>> site's CCTV in case one of their suspects appears on it.
>
> Trivial to do with the small country towns you keep mindlessly
> rabbiting on about which most perps don't actually bother with.

Round and round in circles we go,
what I have told you you already know.

The cops don't know where they are if they take the precautions
I've described (mainly not letting the phone network track them
there), so they'd have to check CCTV in every country town (and
big city).

>> With my way they at least narrowed down the number
>> of sites to check by looking at the metadata first
>
> Pity about the number of those in the country, stupid.

ISP metadata. Country internet connections make metadata just like
the city ones do. It's impractical whether the cops use that to
narrow down their search or not though anyway.

[News 2021]

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:14:21 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

"Country" ISPs are almost non-existent. AFAIK, all ISPs route their
customers through the same central point for surveillance purposes as
required by law. Those big brand surveillance boxes re very expensive.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4lars$p47$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Nope, the vast bulk of murderers who are
too stupid to do their research right. If they
had half a clue they would use a vpn.

> Well they'd just do the searching at home on
> the couch like the woman this thread is about
> probably did, so there's no helping them.

Your approach wont help the others either.

>>>>> then launch into action whenever there's a murder,
>>>>> scouring the metadata for any murder-related
>>>>> searches, and then scrambling cops statewide
>>>>> to collect CCTV footage from each location.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said previously, you have that backwards.
>>>>
>>>> What they actually do is decide that a couple
>>>> of individuals are likely candidates for a particular
>>>> murder and then check which free wifis have
>>>> CCTV of those individuals using those free wifis
>>>> and then check the browsing history on those
>>>> and see if that matches the time those individuals
>>>> were there.
>>
>>> That's even harder!
>>
>> Bullshit it is.
>>
>>> With your way they've got to check every single free WiFi
>>> site's CCTV in case one of their suspects appears on it.
>>
>> Trivial to do with the small country towns you keep mindlessly
>> rabbiting on about which most perps don't actually bother with.

> Round and round in circles we go,

Yep, you never did have a fucking clue.

> what I have told you you already know.

And everyone knows you don’t have a clue.

> The cops don't know where they are if they take the precautions

That’s bullshit too with so much CCTV around now.

> I've described (mainly not letting the phone
> network track them there), so they'd have to
> check CCTV in every country town (and big city).

Bullshit they do because hardly anyone heads off to the
other side of the country or the other side of the world
to do their research when they can just use a vpn.

>>> With my way they at least narrowed down the number
>>> of sites to check by looking at the metadata first

>> Pity about the number of those in the country, stupid.

> ISP metadata. Country internet connections make metadata
> just like the city ones do. It's impractical whether the cops
> use that to narrow down their search or not though anyway.

That’s why the cops only bother when they have decided
that one or two individuals is likely to be the murderer.

Its never going to be practical to check all the metadata
in the country to see if anyone has ever researched how
to kill someone and then see if there are any unsolved
murders.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

> And everyone knows you don?t have a clue.

>
>> The cops don't know where they are if they take the precautions
>

> That?s bullshit too with so much CCTV around now.

You've just said that it's easy for the cops to know which CCTV
footage to check without knowing where a suspect is, because
there's so much CCTV to check and that will tell them where the
suspect is. You've clearly given up on making any sense.

>> I've described (mainly not letting the phone
>> network track them there), so they'd have to
>> check CCTV in every country town (and big city).
>
> Bullshit they do because hardly anyone heads off to the
> other side of the country or the other side of the world
> to do their research when they can just use a vpn.

Oh OK, my plan won't work because nobody will use it in the first
place. I can't really argue with that. However I wouldn't trust the
VPN provider as an alternative myself. Better to know you can't be
tracked than to trust someone else not to track you (dodgy ex
intelligence malware publishers especially).

[Dechucka]

snip

>> That?s bullshit too with so much CCTV around now.
>
> You've just said that it's easy for the cops to know which CCTV
> footage to check without knowing where a suspect is, because
> there's so much CCTV to check and that will tell them where the
> suspect is. You've clearly given up on making any sense.

you've just figured that out?

snip

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:14:21 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> With my way they at least narrowed down the number
>>> of sites to check by looking at the metadata first
>

>>> Pity about the number of those in the country, stupid.
>>
>> ISP metadata. Country internet connections make metadata just like the
>> city ones do. It's impractical whether the cops use that to narrow down
>> their search or not though anyway.
>
> "Country" ISPs are almost non-existent. AFAIK, all ISPs route their
> customers through the same central point for surveillance purposes as
> required by law. Those big brand surveillance boxes re very expensive.

Yes, that's what I'm saying - country internet connections go to
the same city ISPs as the city ones. So there's metadata there for
everyone. No idea what Rod's on about, he's given up making any
sense.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4mdgt$174f$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

I said nothing of the sort, fuckwit.

> You've clearly given up on making any sense.

You never made any sense.

>>> I've described (mainly not letting the phone
>>> network track them there), so they'd have to
>>> check CCTV in every country town (and big city).
>>
>> Bullshit they do because hardly anyone heads off to the
>> other side of the country or the other side of the world
>> to do their research when they can just use a vpn.

> Oh OK, my plan won't work because nobody will
> use it in the first place. I can't really argue with that.

Not enough to matter are that stupid.

> However I wouldn't trust the VPN
> provider as an alternative myself.

But then you are the fuckwit too stupid to have a mobile.

> Better to know you can't be tracked

Corse you can always be tracked.

> than to trust someone else not to track you (dodgy
> ex intelligence malware publishers especially).

Pathetic.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4me28$1fd0$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

[News 2021]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 08:15:05 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

I think he gets his drinking water from the irrigation channels around
his place.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4mdgt$174f$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

But then you are the fool too stupid to use a mobile.

It makes more sense to use a vpn that you know
doesn’t keep logs because they have never been
forced by a court to reveal what is in the logs
than to fart around moving halfway around the
fucking country to research how to murder
someone and not get caught.

And if they have been forced to provide their
logs, that has to have been announced in the
court or it wouldn’t be acceptable as evidence
in the trial of that particular perp.

> Better to know you can't be tracked than to
> trust someone else not to track you (dodgy
> ex intelligence malware publishers especially).

Trivial to avoid those.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Past performance isn't always an indicator of future performance,
as they say in the superannuation ads. Besides, if it's actually
the intelligence services that collect your info from the VPN (by
agreement with its dodgy operators), then it might still be used
to put the cops on the trail of other evidence against you even if
the VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.

>> Better to know you can't be tracked than to
>> trust someone else not to track you (dodgy
>> ex intelligence malware publishers especially).
>
> Trivial to avoid those.

Apparantly not for everyone here who'se been recommending PIA.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4qpda$irh$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

More mindless bullshit. Why would they start logging
when they havent done that before. And in fact in
many jurisdictions the law requires that they don’t
keep user data that they may have chosen to before.

> Besides, if it's actually the intelligence services
> that collect your info from the VPN (by agreement
> with its dodgy operators),

Why the fuck would those who run the
vpn agree to do that ? In spades with
foreign intelligence services ?

> then it might still be used to put the cops on
> the trail of other evidence against you even if
> the VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.

Intelligence services don’t tell cops what data
they have access to because there are so many
cops who arent vetted like spooks are who will
blab about what data they have access to.

>>> Better to know you can't be tracked than to
>>> trust someone else not to track you (dodgy
>>> ex intelligence malware publishers especially).
>>
>> Trivial to avoid those.

> Apparantly not for everyone here
> who'se been recommending PIA.

Only the stupids.

[News 2021]

On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 23:53:15 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

> Past performance isn't always an indicator of future performance, as
> they say in the superannuation ads. Besides, if it's actually the
> intelligence services that collect your info from the VPN (by agreement
> with its dodgy operators), then it might still be used to put the cops
> on the trail of other evidence against you even if the VPN data itself
> isn't eventually used in court.
>
>>> Better to know you can't be tracked than to trust someone else not to
>>> track you (dodgy ex intelligence malware publishers especially).
>>
>> Trivial to avoid those.
>
> Apparantly not for everyone here who'se been recommending PIA.

So, you don't trust their new Israeli owners.
Your recommendation(s) is/are?
It is trivial to avoid any ISPs code as what you really want is their
portals

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Either they get paid to, or their local authorities break down the
door and tell them to do it or they'll pull the plug. It's Obvious.

>> then it might still be used to put the cops on
>> the trail of other evidence against you even if
>> the VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.
>
> Intelligence services don't tell cops what data
> they have access to because there are so many
> cops who arent vetted like spooks are who will
> blab about what data they have access to.

Here in Aus there have been similar systems reported about where
other departments can put in requests, which aren't public. Eg. if
the VPN were in Australia, so under the Anti Encryption laws, then
lots of departments could get access to collected data. Overseas,
I don't know, but so long as it's technically possible I'd assume
it was happening.

You can be all trustful of whatever promises the VPN provider
makes, and those of the country where they operate, that's fine.
Personally I wouldn't be.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 23:53:15 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> Past performance isn't always an indicator of future performance, as
>> they say in the superannuation ads. Besides, if it's actually the
>> intelligence services that collect your info from the VPN (by agreement
>> with its dodgy operators), then it might still be used to put the cops
>> on the trail of other evidence against you even if the VPN data itself
>> isn't eventually used in court.
>>
>>>> Better to know you can't be tracked than to trust someone else not to
>>>> track you (dodgy ex intelligence malware publishers especially).
>>>
>>> Trivial to avoid those.
>>
>> Apparantly not for everyone here who'se been recommending PIA.
>
> So, you don't trust their new Israeli owners.

Umm, bit late in the thread to realise that isn't it? Actually I
didn't trust them myself before the new owners, but now I don't
understand why anyone would trust them.

> Your recommendation(s) is/are?

Non-existant. Any VPN could be logging you, or be allowing a
government agency to track you by giving them the data as it comes.
The only way to be sure is to run the VPN yourself, and get enough
other people to also use it so that it covers up your own traffic.
Then you're still stuffed if you do that in Australia and some
spook comes to your door quoting the Anti Encryption law stuff.

At the very least I'd suggest using VPN+TOR, but I really can't
claim to have looked into TOR well enough to know exactly how
bulletproof it really is in practice.

Rod seems confident though, you could always try getting a straight
VPN recommendation out of him. Good luck.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4qvq8$mci$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

Why would anyone pay them to do that ?

> or their local authorities break down the door
> and tell them to do it or they'll pull the plug.

There are jurisdictions that arent that stupid.

Same with financial details with banks and companys too.

> It's Obvious.

Its more mindless bullshit actually.

>>> then it might still be used to put the cops on
>>> the trail of other evidence against you even if
>>> the VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.
>>
>> Intelligence services don't tell cops what data
>> they have access to because there are so many
>> cops who arent vetted like spooks are who will
>> blab about what data they have access to.

> Here in Aus there have been similar systems reported about where
> other departments can put in requests, which aren't public.

That never involves the data that INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
have. Because the last thing the spooks need is for anyone
outside their operation to know what data they can access.

> Eg. if the VPN were in Australia, so under the Anti Encryption laws,
> then lots of departments could get access to collected data.

So don’t use an Australian vpn, stupid. Using a foreign
one makes it much harder for a court or the local cops
to demand and get access to any logs too.

> Overseas, I don't know, but so long as it's technically possible

It isnt if they don’t keep logs.

> I'd assume it was happening.

More fool you.

> You can be all trustful of whatever promises the VPN
> provider makes, and those of the country where they
> operate, that's fine. Personally I wouldn't be.

But then you are stupid enough to not have a mobile phone.

[News 2021]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 01:58:25 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

> In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 23:53:15 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>> In aus.computers Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>>> Past performance isn't always an indicator of future performance, as
>>> they say in the superannuation ads. Besides, if it's actually the
>>> intelligence services that collect your info from the VPN (by
>>> agreement with its dodgy operators), then it might still be used to
>>> put the cops on the trail of other evidence against you even if the
>>> VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.
>>>
>>>>> Better to know you can't be tracked than to trust someone else not
>>>>> to track you (dodgy ex intelligence malware publishers especially).
>>>>
>>>> Trivial to avoid those.
>>>
>>> Apparantly not for everyone here who'se been recommending PIA.
>>
>> So, you don't trust their new Israeli owners.
>
> Umm, bit late in the thread to realise that isn't it? Actually I didn't
> trust them myself before the new owners, but now I don't understand why
> anyone would trust them.
>
>> Your recommendation(s) is/are?
>
> Non-existant. Any VPN could be logging you, or be allowing a government
> agency to track you by giving them the data as it comes.

If GovCo can not force them to hand over data, then it is a good chance
they are not. I note that some commercial VPNs have stopped providing
services in contries tyhat mad it mandatory to log.

> The only way to be sure is to run the VPN yourself, and get enough other
> people to also use it so that it covers up your own traffic.

Sigh!

Yes, two people can establish their own VPN link. It is most commonly
done by companies for their internal uses.

VPN traffic is encrypted anyway and there is nothing to stop you
encrypting data before it passes through the VPN.

> Then you're
> still stuffed if you do that in Australia and some spook comes to your
> door quoting the Anti Encryption law stuff.

There is no anti-encryption law stuff. Obviously a hell of a lot of what
has been discussed was over your head.

> At the very least I'd suggest using VPN+TOR, but I really can't claim to
> have looked into TOR well enough to know exactly how bulletproof it
> really is in practice.

Hint,TOR, apart from being heavily developed by the USA government, has a
vulnerability engineered into it and it came close to being exploited, so
you need to keep aware of who is providing the relays. Otherwise, it
really is just a distributed VPN, but you have no way of checking who are
the exit nodes and thus logging you.

> Rod seems confident though, you could always try getting a straight VPN
> recommendation out of him. Good luck.

Rod = your credibility nil. Hint, Woddles was never good enough to be
employed in IT in any area.

[%%]

"News 2021" <new...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:s4rkg6$jgg$1...@dont-email.me...

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

> Hint, Woddles was never good enough
> to be employed in IT in any area.

There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

So they can collect the data. Intelligence pays VPN, gets logs.
Nothing there that's difficult to understand.

>> or their local authorities break down the door
>> and tell them to do it or they'll pull the plug.
>
> There are jurisdictions that arent that stupid.
>
> Same with financial details with banks and companys too.

So some other government just pays the VPN to supply the metadata
to them instead of going through agreements with the local
government's intelligence services.

>> It's Obvious.
>
> Its more mindless bullshit actually.
>
>>>> then it might still be used to put the cops on
>>>> the trail of other evidence against you even if
>>>> the VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.
>>>
>>> Intelligence services don't tell cops what data
>>> they have access to because there are so many
>>> cops who arent vetted like spooks are who will
>>> blab about what data they have access to.
>
>> Here in Aus there have been similar systems reported about where
>> other departments can put in requests, which aren't public.
>
> That never involves the data that INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
> have. Because the last thing the spooks need is for anyone
> outside their operation to know what data they can access.

Everyone knows they can access internet metadata, and that they
_could_ access an Australian VPN's data under the anti-encryption
laws, so what's the secret?

>> Eg. if the VPN were in Australia, so under the Anti Encryption laws,
>> then lots of departments could get access to collected data.
>
> So don't use an Australian vpn, stupid. Using a foreign
> one makes it much harder for a court or the local cops
> to demand and get access to any logs too.

It makes it harder, but all depends on how other governments
share the data (and you don't know which other governments might
have it if they pay the VPN for access to it). Better to make it
impossible by using free WiFi in an untraceable way instead.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Well you can call that a "good chance" and take it if you like. I
think with mobs like PIA it's an extrememly poor chance, and
they'll probably sell you out the first chance they get. That some
don't operate where it's publicly known that they'd have to keep
logs is just an obvious PR decision and proves nothing.

>> The only way to be sure is to run the VPN yourself, and get enough other
>> people to also use it so that it covers up your own traffic.
>
> Sigh!
>
> Yes, two people can establish their own VPN link. It is most commonly
> done by companies for their internal uses.

What are you talking about? Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's
just you using it then someone just has to log the internet traffic
at the endpoint. For this purpose you need to get lots of other
people using it so that the data at the endpoint isn't able to be
matched with your personal usage.

> VPN traffic is encrypted anyway and there is nothing to stop you
> encrypting data before it passes through the VPN.

So what? They can still tell that you've connected to
illegalwebsite.com even if the data you sent to that site was
encrypted. illegalwebsite.com might have their own logs that reveal
the details of what you accessed from that IP address anyway.

>> Then you're
>> still stuffed if you do that in Australia and some spook comes to your
>> door quoting the Anti Encryption law stuff.
>
> There is no anti-encryption law stuff. Obviously a hell of a lot of what
> has been discussed was over your head.

The "Assistance and Access Act". I posted all about it here when it
was proposed and passed. With it the Aus gov can demand a VPN to
grant them access to information from the servers, as with with
pretty much any other computer-related company.

>> At the very least I'd suggest using VPN+TOR, but I really can't claim to
>> have looked into TOR well enough to know exactly how bulletproof it
>> really is in practice.
>
> Hint,TOR, apart from being heavily developed by the USA government, has a
> vulnerability engineered into it and it came close to being exploited, so
> you need to keep aware of who is providing the relays. Otherwise, it
> really is just a distributed VPN, but you have no way of checking who are
> the exit nodes and thus logging you.

Yes, I know all that. I haven't looked into exactly what gives
people faith in the relays, or the details of previous exploits. I
do know that the theory is that it should take more than just the
info from the exit node to trace data back to the user though
(unlike just using a VPN).

I'll not debate it further because as I said in the first place I
don't know the specifics. You already admit that using a VPN is
still taking a chance, so TOR just adds an extra layer which
_might_ complicate things for someone tracking you.

>> Rod seems confident though, you could always try getting a straight VPN
>> recommendation out of him. Good luck.
>
> Rod = your credibility nil. Hint, Woddles was never good enough to be
> employed in IT in any area.

Did you really not pick up on any irony in me suggesting you ask
Rod? Seriously?!

[News 2021]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 02:35:27 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

know what data they can access.
>
> Everyone knows they can access internet metadata, and that they _could_
> access an Australian VPN's data under the anti-encryption laws, so
> what's the secret?

What anti-encryption laws?
FWIW, I crunch my own encryption using globally checked and certified
method(s)

[News 2021]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 03:09:24 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just
> you using it then someone just has to log the internet traffic at the
> endpoint.

So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
solved.

> For this purpose you need to get lots of other people using it
> so that the data at the endpoint isn't able to be matched with your
> personal usage.

That is why you use a public company.

>
>> VPN traffic is encrypted anyway and there is nothing to stop you
>> encrypting data before it passes through the VPN.
>
> So what? They can still tell that you've connected to illegalwebsite.com
> even if the data you sent to that site was encrypted.

What illegal website? How is a website illegaL?

> illegalwebsite.com
> might have their own logs that reveal the details of what you accessed
> from that IP address anyway.

Err, it you use a VPN and have your software set up properly, the website
only knows the portal you went through to connect to them, not how you
got to that portal.

>
>>> Then you're still stuffed if you do that in Australia and some spook

?>> comes to your door quoting the Anti Encryption law stuff.

>>
>> There is no anti-encryption law stuff. Obviously a hell of a lot of
>> what has been discussed was over your head.
>
> The "Assistance and Access Act". I posted all about it here when it was
> proposed and passed. With it the Aus gov can demand a VPN to grant them
> access to information from the servers, as with with pretty much any
> other computer-related company.

That is not an anti-encryption law.

Dood, you are thick. As I've said and pointed out, there are VPN
companies that have no such logs.

>
>>> At the very least I'd suggest using VPN+TOR, but I really can't claim
>>> to have looked into TOR well enough to know exactly how bulletproof it
>>> really is in practice.
>>
>> Hint,TOR, apart from being heavily developed by the USA government, has
>> a vulnerability engineered into it and it came close to being
>> exploited, so you need to keep aware of who is providing the relays.
>> Otherwise, it really is just a distributed VPN, but you have no way of
>> checking who are the exit nodes and thus logging you.
>
> Yes, I know all that. I haven't looked into exactly what gives people
> faith in the relays, or the details of previous exploits. I do know that
> the theory is that it should take more than just the info from the exit
> node to trace data back to the user though (unlike just using a VPN).
>
> I'll not debate it further because as I said in the first place I don't
> know the specifics. You already admit that using a VPN is still taking a
> chance, so TOR just adds an extra layer which _might_ complicate things
> for someone tracking you.

Talk about scrambling the information given to you. Your conclusion and
not mine.

>
>>> Rod seems confident though, you could always try getting a straight
>>> VPN recommendation out of him. Good luck.
>>
>> Rod = your credibility nil. Hint, Woddles was never good enough to be
>> employed in IT in any area.
>
> Did you really not pick up on any irony in me suggesting you ask Rod?
> Seriously?!

Nope. Woddles went onto my "this guy is full of shit" list in BBS days. I
actually met the turd face to face once and had a mirthful time seeing
the guy that asked him to come and give him advice, quickly come to the
same conclusion and then give Woddles the bums rush to get rid of him.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s4tn9d$8qn$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

But if spooks do that and they might to keep track
of terrorist activity etc, they wouldn’t be stupid
enough to tell the cops that they are doing that.

>>> or their local authorities break down the door
>>> and tell them to do it or they'll pull the plug.
>>
>> There are jurisdictions that arent that stupid.
>>
>> Same with financial details with banks and companys too.

> So some other government just pays the VPN to supply
> the metadata to them instead of going through agreements
> with the local government's intelligence services.

There arent enough murderers that use vpns to
research how to do a murder to warrant that cost.

>>> It's Obvious.
>>
>> Its more mindless bullshit actually.
>>
>>>>> then it might still be used to put the cops on
>>>>> the trail of other evidence against you even if
>>>>> the VPN data itself isn't eventually used in court.
>>>>
>>>> Intelligence services don't tell cops what data
>>>> they have access to because there are so many
>>>> cops who arent vetted like spooks are who will
>>>> blab about what data they have access to.
>>
>>> Here in Aus there have been similar systems reported about where
>>> other departments can put in requests, which aren't public.
>>
>> That never involves the data that INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
>> have. Because the last thing the spooks need is for anyone
>> outside their operation to know what data they can access.

> Everyone knows they can access internet metadata,

Not with a vpn with no logs they cant.

> and that they _could_ access an Australian VPN's data
> under the anti-encryption laws, so what's the secret?

That they have paid the vpn to lie about no logs, stupid.

>>> Eg. if the VPN were in Australia, so under the Anti Encryption laws,
>>> then lots of departments could get access to collected data.
>>
>> So don't use an Australian vpn, stupid. Using a foreign
>> one makes it much harder for a court or the local cops
>> to demand and get access to any logs too.

> It makes it harder, but all depends on how other governments
> share the data (and you don't know which other governments
> might have it if they pay the VPN for access to it). Better to make
> it impossible by using free WiFi in an untraceable way instead.

There is no untraceable way.

[%%]

"News 2021" <new...@woa.com.au> wrote in message

news:s4tr2i$i0f$2...@dont-email.me...

Bullshit you ever did.

> and had a mirthful time seeing the guy that asked him to come
> and give him advice, quickly come to the same conclusion and
> then give Woddles the bums rush to get rid of him.

Just your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasy.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't
log you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging
you, unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting
someone else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly
untrustworthy people in my opinion.

Why this needs explaining to you, I have no idea.

>> For this purpose you need to get lots of other people using it
>> so that the data at the endpoint isn't able to be matched with your
>> personal usage.
>
> That is why you use a public company.
>
>>
>>> VPN traffic is encrypted anyway and there is nothing to stop you
>>> encrypting data before it passes through the VPN.
>>
>> So what? They can still tell that you've connected to illegalwebsite.com
>> even if the data you sent to that site was encrypted.
>
> What illegal website? How is a website illegaL?

Not worth answering a question that obvious.

>> illegalwebsite.com
>> might have their own logs that reveal the details of what you accessed
>> from that IP address anyway.
>
> Err, it you use a VPN and have your software set up properly, the website
> only knows the portal you went through to connect to them, not how you
> got to that portal.

VPN logs you, website logs VPN, put the two together and anyone
looking at both logs knows what you accessed.

>>>> Then you're still stuffed if you do that in Australia and some spook
> ?>> comes to your door quoting the Anti Encryption law stuff.
>
>>>
>>> There is no anti-encryption law stuff. Obviously a hell of a lot of
>>> what has been discussed was over your head.
>>
>> The "Assistance and Access Act". I posted all about it here when it was
>> proposed and passed. With it the Aus gov can demand a VPN to grant them
>> access to information from the servers, as with with pretty much any
>> other computer-related company.
>
> That is not an anti-encryption law.

Just what the media called it and more accurate than the official
name because it can be used to compel businesses to put back-doors
in encrypted services (unless you believe in the ammendments that
contradict themselves).

> Dood, you are thick. As I've said and pointed out, there are VPN
> companies that have no such logs.

Which VPN companies did you point out? Just dodgy PIA I think.
How do you know they don't keep logs, or allow others real-time
access to the usage data for them to log, so they can still
claim in court not to have logs themselves?

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Perhaps, but it would be better not to take the risk. You've not
explained how it's impossible to use free WiFi in an untraceable
way, except for personal lazyness, so it's still a better option
in my opinion.

[News 2021]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02:00 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

>>> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just you using it then someone
>>> just has to log the internet traffic at the endpoint.
>> So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
>> solved.
>
> So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't log
> you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging you,
> unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting someone
> else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly untrustworthy
> people in my opinion.

A VPN goes between locations. What are you gong to do for the other end?
You provide no workable solution.

On the internet, you have to trust selected people to be on the internet.

>
> Why this needs explaining to you, I have no idea.

I wanted to know the depth of thought and reasons for your 'opinions.

>> What illegal website? How is a website illegaL?
>
> Not worth answering a question that obvious.

Shrug, "illegality" is a flexible term.
Whose "laws" is it illegal under?

> VPN logs you, website logs VPN, put the two together and anyone looking
> at both logs knows what you accessed.

Err, theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, especially f your
computer, the entry VPN portal, the exit VPN portal and the website are
in different legal duristrictions(sp?).

PIA claims that it doesn't match login authorisations to VPN traffic.
So far,at least two courts have accepted their explanations of how their
"logging" works and they can not provide the information requested.

>
> Which VPN companies did you point out? Just dodgy PIA I think.

Why do you consider it dodgy?
I researched it years ago and considered it one of the better. Time and
legal matters have confirmed it.

> How do
> you know they don't keep logs, or allow others real-time access to the
> usage data for them to log, so they can still claim in court not to have
> logs themselves?

I can only come to the conclusion that you do not use VPNs in any
significant form.

[Rod Speed]

"Computer Nerd Kev" <n...@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:s502v0$rro$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

No perhaps about it, that’s the way spooks operate.

> but it would be better not to take the risk.

Mindlessly silly when you hike halfway across the
fucking country or the world to avoid that zero risk.

> You've not explained how it's impossible
> to use free WiFi in an untraceable way,

That’s a lie.

> except for personal lazyness,

Another lie.

> so it's still a better option in my opinion.

But then you are too stupid to have a mobile phone.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02:00 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>>> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just you using it then someone
>>>> just has to log the internet traffic at the endpoint.
>>> So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
>>> solved.
>>
>> So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't log
>> you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging you,
>> unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting someone
>> else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly untrustworthy
>> people in my opinion.
>
> A VPN goes between locations. What are you gong to do for the other end?
> You provide no workable solution.

You're in denial that I'm saying what I'm saying or something. I
think the ONLY solution for trusting a VPN provider is if you run
the public VPN service yourself. Just like the other VPN providers,
with lots of other people using it, so at the "other end" there's
a constant and overwhelming volume of traffic that isn't your own.

From an ISP logging, it would look like it was all coming from you
(or the connection at the data centre where your server lives) of
course. But you'd have plausible deniability of any particular site
access event if someone confronted you with it, because it could
have been any of the numerous other people using the VPN at the
same time.

That's a VPN service, now all I suggest is that the only person
you can trust to set it up without logging is yourself. How else
do you know what they really do after all?

I'm repeating myself because you keep repeating the same questions
back at me and unless this is just an attempt at a Rod Speed
parody, I'm assuming you really don't get it.

> On the internet, you have to trust selected people to be on the
> internet.

Yes, to be on it. But you don't HAVE to trust people not to track
you while you're there. It's just the solutions to that are
complicated and expensive. VPNs are an easy option and individuals
can make up their own mind whether they provide a meaningful level
of tracking protection given that element of trust. For just hiding
that you're downloading pirate software VPNs are probably good
enough.

>>> What illegal website? How is a website illegaL?
>>
>> Not worth answering a question that obvious.
>
> Shrug, "illegality" is a flexible term.
> Whose "laws" is it illegal under?

Some website will be illegal everywhere, which is all I was
implying. Drugs, terrorism, kiddie porn, pirate downloads...

But equally I meant to imply any incriminating browsing history.
Eg. Google search records for the woman wondering how murder works.

>> VPN logs you, website logs VPN, put the two together and anyone looking
>> at both logs knows what you accessed.
>
> Err, theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, especially f your
> computer, the entry VPN portal, the exit VPN portal and the website are
> in different legal duristrictions(sp?).

Nope, there are very well known allegiances between international
police and intelligence agencies. Eg. between Australia and the UK,
where PIA's new parent company is legally based.

>> Which VPN companies did you point out? Just dodgy PIA I think.
> Why do you consider it dodgy?

See my first post in this thread. Either you didn't read it (and
the links) or have a very short memory.

>> How do
>> you know they don't keep logs, or allow others real-time access to the
>> usage data for them to log, so they can still claim in court not to have
>> logs themselves?
>
> I can only come to the conclusion that you do not use VPNs in any
> significant form.

Correct, a waste of money because in my opinion the most successful
ones are most likely to be the ones that take money off
intelligence services for handing data over to them. Hence they can
offer the service cheap, and dominate over any honest competition.
No I haven't got proof, but it seems the most likely outcome for an
industry based entirely on trust that runs without any supervision.

Unless maybe you just want to hide your illegal torrents of movies
and software (I don't do that), in which case it might be good
enough. But only because nobody tries that hard to bust you for it
anyway.

[News 2021]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:36:04 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

> In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02:00 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>>>> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just you using it then someone
>>>>> just has to log the internet traffic at the endpoint.
>>>> So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
>>>> solved.
>>>
>>> So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't log
>>> you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging you,
>>> unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting someone
>>> else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly untrustworthy
>>> people in my opinion.
>>
>> A VPN goes between locations. What are you gong to do for the other
>> end?
>> You provide no workable solution.
>
> You're in denial that I'm saying what I'm saying or something. I think
> the ONLY solution for trusting a VPN provider is if you run the public
> VPN service yourself.

Seriously, are you absolutely nuts. The costs is enormous.

> Just like the other VPN providers,
> with lots of other people using it, so at the "other end" there's a
> constant and overwhelming volume of traffic that isn't your own.
>
> From an ISP logging,

All your ISP logs is that you connected to a VPN service. Nothing more.
yo could be reading the newsa, watching sport, watching a movie, doing
your banking, etc. The ISP doesnt know.

Trivial to have back ground application to provide noise.

[keithr0]

On 13/04/2021 3:59 pm, News 2021 wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:36:04 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>
>> In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02:00 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>>>>> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just you using it then someone
>>>>>> just has to log the internet traffic at the endpoint.
>>>>> So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
>>>>> solved.
>>>>
>>>> So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't log
>>>> you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging you,
>>>> unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting someone
>>>> else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly untrustworthy
>>>> people in my opinion.
>>>
>>> A VPN goes between locations. What are you gong to do for the other
>>> end?
>>> You provide no workable solution.
>>
>> You're in denial that I'm saying what I'm saying or something. I think
>> the ONLY solution for trusting a VPN provider is if you run the public
>> VPN service yourself.
>
> Seriously, are you absolutely nuts. The costs is enormous.

Not if you locate it on something like AWS.

[News 2021]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:54:45 +1000, keithr0 scribed:

> On 13/04/2021 3:59 pm, News 2021 wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:36:04 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>
>>> In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02:00 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>>>>>> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just you using it then
>>>>>>> someone just has to log the internet traffic at the endpoint.
>>>>>> So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
>>>>>> solved.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't
>>>>> log you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging
>>>>> you, unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting
>>>>> someone else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly
>>>>> untrustworthy people in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> A VPN goes between locations. What are you gong to do for the other
>>>> end?
>>>> You provide no workable solution.
>>>
>>> You're in denial that I'm saying what I'm saying or something. I think
>>> the ONLY solution for trusting a VPN provider is if you run the public
>>> VPN service yourself.
>>
>> Seriously, are you absolutely nuts. The costs is enormous.
>
> Not if you locate it on something like AWS.

Then why use a VPN.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:36:04 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>> In aus.computers News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:02:00 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:
>>>>>> Yes I know what a VPN is, but if it's just you using it then someone
>>>>>> just has to log the internet traffic at the endpoint.
>>>>> So you choose a company/service tha doesn't do any logging. Problem
>>>>> solved.
>>>>
>>>> So the basis of your argument then is just find a VPN that doesn't log
>>>> you. I'm saying there's no way to be sure a VPN isn't logging you,
>>>> unless you set it up yourself, otherwise you're just trusting someone
>>>> else. In PIA's case, that trust is also of distinctly untrustworthy
>>>> people in my opinion.
>>>
>>> A VPN goes between locations. What are you gong to do for the other
>>> end?
>>> You provide no workable solution.
>>
>> You're in denial that I'm saying what I'm saying or something. I think
>> the ONLY solution for trusting a VPN provider is if you run the public
>> VPN service yourself.
>
> Seriously,

Yes.

> are you absolutely nuts. The costs is enormous.

That's what it costs to have a VPN that you can really trust. I
guess if you want someone to build you a house you tell them
they're nuts if they won't do it for a couple of grand?

Anyway, charge the other people using it and it might be a viable
business. Though probably not because I think you'd be competing
with other VPN businesses that take extra money for handing over
access to user metadata. But anyone can try (if they can pay the
set-up costs).

>> Just like the other VPN providers,
>> with lots of other people using it, so at the "other end" there's a
>> constant and overwhelming volume of traffic that isn't your own.
>>
>> From an ISP logging,
>
> All your ISP logs is that you connected to a VPN service. Nothing more.
> yo could be reading the newsa, watching sport, watching a movie, doing
> your banking, etc. The ISP doesnt know.

OK, you are just parodying Rod Speed. Repeating the same assertion
endlessly and deliberately not confronting my response that you
can't trust that the VPN itself won't log you or spew out your
access data to someone else (unless you run it yourself).

If this is actually all just a big laugh for you, then well done,
you got me this far.

[News 2021]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 23:17:40 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev scribed:

I have many better things to do. I'll add your suggestion to my
collection of stupid suggestions and idiot ideas that I've received over
the decades.

> Though probably not because I think you'd be competing with
> other VPN businesses that take extra money for handing over access to
> user metadata.

Err, Google,Facebook, etc

> But anyone can try (if they can pay the set-up costs).
>
>>> Just like the other VPN providers,
>>> with lots of other people using it, so at the "other end" there's a
>>> constant and overwhelming volume of traffic that isn't your own.
>>>
>>> From an ISP logging,
>>
>> All your ISP logs is that you connected to a VPN service. Nothing more.
>> yo could be reading the newsa, watching sport, watching a movie, doing
>> your banking, etc. The ISP doesnt know.
>
> OK, you are just parodying Rod Speed. Repeating the same assertion
> endlessly and deliberately not confronting my response that you can't
> trust that the VPN itself won't log you or spew out your access data to
> someone else (unless you run it yourself).

Err, try properly configuring your VPN and then run some tests to see
what, if anything it leeks.

>
> If this is actually all just a big laugh for you, then well done, you
> got me this far.

No, I was looking for useful information, but there was none.

[Petzl]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:01:34 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You've not explained how it's impossible
>> to use free WiFi in an untraceable way,

Use a VPN their program encrypts EVERYTHING from your computer till
it's decrypted by the VPN server then goes unencrypted to target IP.

The Data back from target IP goes to the VPN server and encrypted,
then back to your device, then decrypted by the VPN program on your
device.

You can also have that encrypted data go through numerous servers
before ending up encrypted by your VPN server, then sent to and then
decrypted on your computer.
The encryption used is considered uncrackable (at least in our
lifetime).
--
Petzl
We know they are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying. Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

[Petzl]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 05:59:10 -0000 (UTC), News 2021

There are freeware "tackons" that also do not log (do not change
encryption) simple "open relays" that you can send your VPN ensrypted
date through, then back to you. Problems are they may be not in your
demographic IP range.

This stops your ISP knowing you are connected to a VPN.
As webpages now have lists of VPN servers and blocking you