Calrionite, the VPN creates an encrypted tunnel from your box (PC, Iphone, iPad, etc.) to the VPN provider. All Comcast, AT&T, etc., will see is that there is port 443 (or randomized port #) traffic between you and VPNUnlimited.com (for instance). The ISP can't see that you're surfing reddit.com or RachelMaddow.com, they only see that you are sending and receiving traffic from VPNUnlimited.
Even your DNS requests will be encrypted and filtered through a VPN providers network, which your ISP won't be able to see, if done properly. It's not hard to find a good one, people have been using VPNs to circumvent "anti fun" filters in the middle east, so they're reliable. Add incompetence and disinterest of authorities in general, and you're golden.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “FCC Internet Privacy Reg canceled- good or bad?”
- Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:09 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: FCC Internet Privacy Reg canceled- good or bad?
- Replies: 39
- Views: 10238
- Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:45 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: FCC Internet Privacy Reg canceled- good or bad?
- Replies: 39
- Views: 10238
Re: FCC Internet Privacy Reg canceled- good or bad?
It's a non issue. Your ISP isn't a problem any more than Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, Facebook, etc., are. All of them have terms of service which any user has accepted which permit those services (for the most part) to collect information about sites you visit and your activities, even if you don't use google, etc to sign into those sites. (Hence why your wife sees ads for Ammoman.com when she is on Pinterest in your browser)
All internet usage is voluntary. If something is "free" you give up something to get said "free" product.
I bring up Google in particular because when they rolled out google fiber to Austin, my sister asked if it was a good deal. Knowing G's business, I went digging in the ToS. You could get 1Gig for $89 (or whatever) it was a month, but if you didn't want Google using your browsing data to deliver advertising "targeted to your interests" it would merely cost you an extra $30 a month. The default was to give up all sorts of data for their awesome, cheapo service that Comcast, etc., couldn't match.
Amazon does this too, but I find value in the fact that Amazon knows that people that enjoyed "Extreme Ownership" would also like "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. I get value from that, so it's ok.
VPNs are useless in this country, unless you use non identifiable logins (using John.Snow@Gmail.com to login to your offshore gambling account doesn't make it very hard for the IRS) for your activities.
Visit eff.org . Create multiple logins, never link Facebook, google+, etc., as your login across sites. Paranoia level is that you create a different alias email address for every site (it's doable and free.)
All internet usage is voluntary. If something is "free" you give up something to get said "free" product.
I bring up Google in particular because when they rolled out google fiber to Austin, my sister asked if it was a good deal. Knowing G's business, I went digging in the ToS. You could get 1Gig for $89 (or whatever) it was a month, but if you didn't want Google using your browsing data to deliver advertising "targeted to your interests" it would merely cost you an extra $30 a month. The default was to give up all sorts of data for their awesome, cheapo service that Comcast, etc., couldn't match.
Amazon does this too, but I find value in the fact that Amazon knows that people that enjoyed "Extreme Ownership" would also like "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. I get value from that, so it's ok.
VPNs are useless in this country, unless you use non identifiable logins (using John.Snow@Gmail.com to login to your offshore gambling account doesn't make it very hard for the IRS) for your activities.
Visit eff.org . Create multiple logins, never link Facebook, google+, etc., as your login across sites. Paranoia level is that you create a different alias email address for every site (it's doable and free.)