@didek @post a huge part of Fi—especially originally—is connecting to public Wi-Fi networks to offload data from the carrier itself. Even so, when away from Wi-Fi, your traffic is going through T-Mobile, Sprint, US Cellular, or roaming partner towers and networks. It makes some sense to just say, screw it: nobody in the middle gets to know what my traffic is.
Your traffic is encrypted, what's the difference between letting your ISP know the domains you connect too Vs letting the VPN provider have the same information?
@post @cassidyjames @didek Exactly the difference you've stated: you're trusting different people.
Who you trust matters just as much as – if not more than – how much you trust.
@wizzwizz4 @cassidyjames @didek
This is my understanding too, and I was curious to know why OP said he is happy that more people encrypt more traffic through a VPN service.
If there isn't something I'm missing, I think that sentence could mislead people into thinking a VPN provider is better for privacy and security.
@post @wizzwizz4 @didek given that carriers constantly come under fire for selling, leaking, or otherwise snooping on your data as it passes through their pipes, I would much rather use a VPN. I also appreciate websites not getting a unique IP address for me to further target and geolocate me without my permission.
@cassidyjames @wizzwizz4 @didek
I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with VPN vs ISP, you just seem to have a bias or fell for some marketing campaign with the aim of selling a useless service.
The mention of an open source client was particularly unrelated and it seems thrown there like a buzzword.
If you really need to hide the domains (example.com) you are connecting to from your ISP, use Tor.
@post @cassidyjames @wizzwizz4 @didek
VPNs are good for peer to peer gaming when you don't want to let people know where you live. Honestly VPNs are really good when you use them for changing location and hiding where your home is. Tor is way too slow for that.
@Zach777 @cassidyjames @wizzwizz4 @didek
I'm not saying they are useless, but this particular sentence puzzled me:
> I’m genuinely happy to see traffic encrypted through a VPN becoming more the default
@cassidyjames @post @wizzwizz4 @didek FWIW there's a much better solution where your "VPN" provider is guaranteed to not sell your browsing information - Tor
@cassidyjames
I'm so confused by this position. Isn't Google largely who you want privacy *from*?
As the primary internet monopoly, Google form a major part of the US govt surveillance network, as well as running the dominant ad tracking network. They can't be trusted, they will change terms as suits them.
Using Google's VPN is worse than not using a VPN at all, because you're willingly sending them your *full* internet activity, far more than they'd have naturally.
@post @wizzwizz4 @didek
@cassidyjames
Ok I suppose if you don't care at all how much control the government has over you or how much Google knows about you to manipulate you for their commercial purposes, and you *only* care about MITM attacks on public WiFi - then Google's VPN will help. I do agree they're unlikely to MITM you. Although, as I say that, AMP is basically a large scale MITM attack...
@post @wizzwizz4 @didek
@post @wizzwizz4 @didek a well-documented, audited private VPN with open source client code that is offered as a bonus from a reputable company that also has a LOT of industry goodwill to lose if they mess it up *is* likely better for security and privacy than not using a VPN or using a shady free service from some company you have never heard of or with no track record.