ISPs get legal notices from companies and are liable if it is found that their users are downloading illegal torrents and they don’t take action against those users.
How are VPNs any different? By using a VPN, aren’t you essentially transferring your accountability to the VPN provider? Wouldn’t courts find that since this or that VPN service’s exit server was used in ____ illegal online activity, they’re responsible and must cease operations?
How do VPNs operate? Are laws different for them? If yes, then how does that benefit the state? Wouldn’t the state benefit from treating VPNs the same as ISPs so they get more control?
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 124 users / day
- 1.05K users / week
- 1.3K users / month
- 4.58K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.35K Posts
- 85.3K Comments
- Modlog
“By using a VPN, aren’t you essentially transferring your accountability to the VPN provider?”. This is true if you aren’t paying for your VPN in an anonimous way, which is why 99% of the “VPN fOr PRiVacY” are scams.
And this is why people should torrent over I2P.
Depends. On. The. Country.
Any company will be subject to the country’s laws, be it ISPs, VPN providers or a second-hand clothing shop.
The good ones will get away with no logging if they can do it legally.
many companies, if not all, use some kind of selfhosted vpn solution
VPNs are a double-edged sword. They can be used in a good way and a bad way.
As it stands, ISPs are not liable for what you do with your internet any more than apple would be liable if you called in a bomb threat on an iPhone .
It’s like running a mailbox center for people. You’re providing the infrastructure, but you’re not responsible for the mail that goes through your mailboxes.
The scenario you describe with ISPs is pretty US-centric, as are the various copyright laws and companies backing it, which is (one of the reasons) why many of the most successful VPN companies are either not based in the US (and most have server nodes that are not too).
Mullvad is from Sweden, for example, and Proton is from Switzerland, so if a content company can even figure out which endpoint nodes are hosting/routing the pirate content they then also have to figure out (a) who owns the node and (b) then send them an angrygram which will just immediately be torn up by the VPN provider as they’re not subject to US law.
Finally, an operating principle of these companies is to keep no logs, so even if a US-based VPN company got an angry letter, they’d probably be unable to do anything since they would have no record of the activity.
Related, Pirate Bay used to (might still?) have a section where they mock all of the threatening letters that cite a different jurisdiction. Usually the US DMCA, but also similar laws from other countries.
They never posted any letters that cited Swedish (IIRC) law, because those were valid threats.
I don’t think that it’s actually true that ISPs are liable if they don’t take down users. I think they go along with it because (1) it’s easier than arguing (2) those users are using a lot of bandwidth and the piracy forms a handy excuse.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/supreme-court-may-decide-whether-isps-must-terminate-users-accused-of-piracy/
Even if Section 230 didn’t require providers to terminate the user’s service, providers further upstream could technically punish that ISP for breaking their own ToS depending on what it is.
People like Liz Fong-Jones and Keffals have successfully lobbied multiple Tier 1 ISPs to blackhole websites that have posted information about them that they didn’t like based on this fact, behavior which the EFF has specifically called out as a threat to the free and open Internet. Even the CEO of Cloudflare has openly admitted to being personally involved in blocking sites without a really good reason.
Or they could improve their network for torrenting like some Indian ISPs did in the past
Torbox.net doesn’t seem to be up at the moment.
The article is from 2016.
There is like no information in your link except the USA supreme court or whatever wants to have some power (so over USA VPN only if ever that actually happens).
And what you “think” is kind of irrelevant IMO.
So, current precedent is that the ISPs do have to terminate, but there’s no penalty if they don’t. Is November recent enough that the ruling has actually had any impact? Did the Supreme Coury decide to take up the case or not yet? How much does it means that the ISPs “have to” terminate users, but there doesn’t seem to be a penalty if they don’t? Is the fact that there was no ruling until recently, confirmation that they were doing it voluntarily for their own reasons before November? Or were they doing it “voluntarily” because they didn’t want to defend lawsuits like this, except Cox which was refusing to do it apparently? I have no sure idea of the answer to any of those questions. That’s why I said “I think.” But, unlike some people on the internet, I don’t just make up some bullshit and then decide that’s what I “think” and go spouting off about it. I’m just relaying my best guess, reasons for it, and being honest about the fact that it’s a guess.
Maybe where you live 🤷🏻♀️