From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

December 7, 2021

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and
security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

December 7, 2021

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

One interesting remark in that article is "The bottom line: You
shouldnrCOt use a VPN unless you trust it more than you trust your ISP."

Thanks for posting that link. Very informative. 80)>
--
John C. I filter crossposts, various trolls & dizum.com. Doing this
makes this newsgroup easier to read & more on-topic. Take back the tech companies from India & industry from China.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 08/02/2026 03:18, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

Torrentfreak covers this and reports which ones do not share data.
Personally, I chose AirVPN and it has served me well, so far.

Cheers,
--
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-08 16:03, Robert wrote:

On 08/02/2026 03:18, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

Torrentfreak covers this and reports which ones do not share data. Personally, I chose AirVPN and it has served me well, so far.

+1
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sat, 07 Feb 2026 21:18:05 -0600, Marcus90 wrote:

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and
security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

Just a note these are not VPNs, they are VPN services.

This <https://openvpn.net/community/> is a VPN.
This <https://www.wireguard.com/> is a VPN.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-08, John C. <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

December 7, 2021

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and
security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

One interesting remark in that article is "The bottom line: You
shouldnrCOt use a VPN unless you trust it more than you trust your ISP."

Thanks for posting that link. Very informative. 80)>

Note that this is a 4 years old article. Surely the market has changed
enough that it is not valid anymore, except for how it reveals that most
of the service providers are not trustworthy.

As I see it, there are two different reasons for using a VPN service:
1) To bypass geofencing. In order to watch the Danish movies on the DR
website (Danmarks Radio - the public broadcaster of Denmark), I need
to have a Danish IP address. Having never tried this, I do not know
how rigidly they enforce this by potentially blocking the exit nodes
of VPN providers. They might just want to formality of being able to
say they are doing "something".
2) To cloak yourself for real anonymity. In which case you probably need
TOR.
By the way, for the purposes of (1) above, I really need the VPN client
to be in my Roku TVs. But I don't think that is feasible.
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-09 15:19, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On 2026-02-08, John C. <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

December 7, 2021

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and
security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

One interesting remark in that article is "The bottom line: You
shouldnrCOt use a VPN unless you trust it more than you trust your ISP."

Thanks for posting that link. Very informative. 80)>

Note that this is a 4 years old article. Surely the market has changed
enough that it is not valid anymore, except for how it reveals that most
of the service providers are not trustworthy.

As I see it, there are two different reasons for using a VPN service:
1) To bypass geofencing. In order to watch the Danish movies on the DR
website (Danmarks Radio - the public broadcaster of Denmark), I need
to have a Danish IP address. Having never tried this, I do not know
how rigidly they enforce this by potentially blocking the exit nodes
of VPN providers. They might just want to formality of being able to
say they are doing "something".
2) To cloak yourself for real anonymity. In which case you probably need
TOR.
By the way, for the purposes of (1) above, I really need the VPN client
to be in my Roku TVs. But I don't think that is feasible.

Wold not work having it on the router? But then you need to point the TV
to it, somehow.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-09, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-02-09 15:19, Lars Poulsen wrote:

On 2026-02-08, John C. <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> wrote:

Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

December 7, 2021

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and
security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

One interesting remark in that article is "The bottom line: You
shouldnrCOt use a VPN unless you trust it more than you trust your ISP." >>>
Thanks for posting that link. Very informative. 80)>

Note that this is a 4 years old article. Surely the market has changed
enough that it is not valid anymore, except for how it reveals that most
of the service providers are not trustworthy.

As I see it, there are two different reasons for using a VPN service:
1) To bypass geofencing. In order to watch the Danish movies on the DR
website (Danmarks Radio - the public broadcaster of Denmark), I need
to have a Danish IP address. Having never tried this, I do not know
how rigidly they enforce this by potentially blocking the exit nodes
of VPN providers. They might just want to formality of being able to
say they are doing "something".
2) To cloak yourself for real anonymity. In which case you probably need
TOR.
By the way, for the purposes of (1) above, I really need the VPN client
to be in my Roku TVs. But I don't think that is feasible.

Wold not work having it on the router? But then you need to point the TV
to it, somehow.

If the VPN service is using OpenVpn, and the router supports OpenVpn and
if the router is under my control, and if the service I need to reach is
in a stable and predictable IP address range, it *should* be possible to
let the VPN be associated with a specific outbound route.

All of which add up to a lot of uncertainty. The usual way to install
VPNs is to make the remote endpoint of the VPN the default router for
the PC on which you are installing it; for this the VPN services
provide consumer-grade installation instructions.

I suppose, I could install the VPN and the route to the foreign server
on a Linux box on the LAN, and make THAT the default router for the
TVs. Maybe DHCP can hand the server-specific route to the TV, the same
way it hands each TV its stable IP address at power-on time.
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 19:40:19 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen
<lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:

I suppose, I could install the VPN and the route to the foreign server
on a Linux box on the LAN, and make THAT the default router for the
TVs. Maybe DHCP can hand the server-specific route to the TV, the same
way it hands each TV its stable IP address at power-on time.

I haven't heard of a network-capable TV or streaming device that *only* understands DHCP and has no capability to manually configure its network settings. Are you saying you have an example of that particular unicorn?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 07 Feb 2026 21:18:05 -0600, Marcus90@guess.com wrote:

December 7, 2021

Very interesting article. They evaluated 16 services for privacy and >security tested by Consumer Reports. Mullvad, IVPN, and Mozilla VPN
came out on top.

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-a9588707317/

I haven't read the thread yet, and tis is about 5 years ago, but I tried
3 VPN's, only because I coudlnt' get the first two to work.

Mozilla, (which I couldn't stop thinking would be free, since Firefox
is free. Is it free?)

Then the one that advertises in the US all the time, whose name I can't remember. When neither it nor Mozilla worked, I thought I didn't know
what I was doing.

Finally Express VPN, which installed easily, came with an app for the
Android (and i?) phone, which also installed easily, and I then decided
I do know what I'm doing.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-10, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 19:40:19 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen
<lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:

I suppose, I could install the VPN and the route to the foreign server
on a Linux box on the LAN, and make THAT the default router for the
TVs. Maybe DHCP can hand the server-specific route to the TV, the same
way it hands each TV its stable IP address at power-on time.

I haven't heard of a network-capable TV or streaming device that *only* understands DHCP and has no capability to manually configure its network settings. Are you saying you have an example of that particular unicorn?

Oh, it can be manually configured all right ... within the very narrow
limits of setting
- IP address
- network mask and
- default router.
But it will not allow me to do the equivalent of
route add -net w.x.y.z/bits gw h.i.j.k.l

So if I designate the default route to be the VPN, Amazon will (maybe)
see that I am in Europe and refuse to show movies that are not available
there.
--
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Marcus wrote:

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/ mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-
a9588707317/

This topic seems to have generated more interest than the *article* is
worth.

- the author of the article is no expert
- the date of the article is stale 4+ y/o
- VPNs get more attention than they deserve

Yael Grauer

She holds an undergraduate degree in social sciences from Shimer
College and a master's degree in journalism from the Walter Cronkite
School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State
University.

... and that prepares her as an 'expert' in either cybersecurity or VPN evaluation?

I'm not saying that VPNs are useless to everyone, just that 'most of'
the VPN user's basis for such use are 'circumspect'.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 18:20:34 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen
<lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-10, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 19:40:19 -0000 (UTC), Lars Poulsen >><lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:

I suppose, I could install the VPN and the route to the foreign server
on a Linux box on the LAN, and make THAT the default router for the
TVs. Maybe DHCP can hand the server-specific route to the TV, the same >>>way it hands each TV its stable IP address at power-on time.

I haven't heard of a network-capable TV or streaming device that *only*
understands DHCP and has no capability to manually configure its network
settings. Are you saying you have an example of that particular unicorn?

Oh, it can be manually configured all right ... within the very narrow
limits of setting
- IP address
- network mask and
- default router.

That seems to be everything you need. In this case, there's very little difference between a static route and a default route, unless you have requirements that you haven't mentioned.

But it will not allow me to do the equivalent of
route add -net w.x.y.z/bits gw h.i.j.k.l

If a static route is important, you could always accomplish it by adding
an outboard device, i.e., a router. The TV's default route could point
to the router, then within the router you'd have the capability to
define a default route plus one or more static routes. I'm not sure if
that's needed, though.

So if I designate the default route to be the VPN, Amazon will (maybe)
see that I am in Europe and refuse to show movies that are not available >there.

One of the nice things about (commercial) VPNs is that it's quick and
easy to change the remote endpoint. If an endpoint in one country is problematic, change it to another.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

micky wrote:

Mozilla, (which I couldn't stop thinking would be free, since Firefox
is free. Is it free?)

Moz VPN is $10/mo unless you buy a year for $60. First time customers
can have a 30d moneyback guarantee.

If you are interested, there is a Reddit discussion of the topic:

Why does Mozilla VPN exist? Why should I get it rather than Mullvad?

Basically the discussion suggests that Moz is 'hurting' and needs the
money (and probably some other relationship than being supported by google).

Moz VPN can wireguard; its linux dl/s are via flathub or enabling a repo
for Ub/Deb deriv/s for apt .deb/s.

You can even dl the source and compile it if those choices don't suit you.

There are also dl/s for Win, Mac, Android, & iOS.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:40:18 -0800, Mike
Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

Marcus wrote:

https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/vpn-services/
mullvad-ivpn-mozilla-vpn-top-consumer-reports-vpn-testing-
a9588707317/

This topic seems to have generated more interest than the *article* is
worth.

- the author of the article is no expert
- the date of the article is stale 4+ y/o
- VPNs get more attention than they deserve

The only reason I can think for your 3rd point here is that they are not
needed for security, yes?

I only use one when I'm out of the country trying to get a US website
that I can't otherwise get, or vice versa.

Yael Grauer

She holds an undergraduate degree in social sciences from Shimer
College and a master's degree in journalism from the Walter Cronkite
School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State
University.

... and that prepares her as an 'expert' in either cybersecurity or VPN >evaluation?

I'm not saying that VPNs are useless to everyone, just that 'most of'
the VPN user's basis for such use are 'circumspect'.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

micky wrote:

I only use one when I'm out of the country trying to get a US website
that I can't otherwise get, or vice versa.

And, for that 'minor' purpose (to me) 'any old' free VPN or proxy will
do, as long as its country options aren't too limited and as long as the
user isn't trying to do something the VPN doesn't do.

For example, Proton free doesn't do P2P/BitTorrent.

I 'mess with' free VPNs for the experience of working w/ setting up the protocol w/ linux, such as wireguard or openvpn; but I don't 'routinely'
use a vpn at all.

I'm more likely to want to work around/defeat a paywall than a geo block.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 08:36:18 -0500, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:40:18 -0800,
Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

- VPNs get more attention than they deserve

The only reason I can think for your 3rd point here is that they are
not needed for security, yes?

They are very much about security. The idea started with IPSec, which
is a truly mind-boggling set of mechanisms for setting up secure
layer-3 connections between networks. Other VPN apps were created as
simpler alternatives to this -- yes, even OpenVPN, with its slightly bewildering array of options, is simpler than IPSec.

And now we have WireGuard, which tries to make things about as simple
as they can be.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

They are very much about security.

Some (types of, situations of, uses of) security is good or very good or
very necessary.

Some (etc) security is an unnecessary and inconvenient burden.

People should use the good and avoid the bad.

Understanding what is 'going on' and what does or does not need to be
done about it is what being informed is all about.

So, the people who should be using VPNs or some other alternative,
should be, and the people who 'shouldn't' (don't need to) shouldn't.

A simplification might be, it depends on what you are doing and who/what
your adversaries are (about that).

Just because something is 'about security' doesn't mean one should be
'doing it'; as in 'security good; insecurity bad'.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:11:06 -0800, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

They are very much about security.

<questioning>

Just because something is 'about security' doesn't mean one should be
'doing it'; as in 'security good; insecurity bad'.

well, Or... four legs good, two legs bad.
But 99.9% (possibly even higher) of the interweb could give two
whatevers in the first place.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:11:06 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

They are very much about security.

Some (types of, situations of, uses of) security is good or very
good or very necessary.

Some (etc) security is an unnecessary and inconvenient burden.

All the VPN services IrCOm aware of use encryption. You may call this
rCLan unnecessary and inconvenient burdenrCY, but it comes as a standard
part of the service.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

All the VPN services IrCOm aware of use encryption. You may call this
rCLan unnecessary and inconvenient burdenrCY, but it comes as a
standard part of the service.

It depends.

https://stevesrantsnraves.blogspot.com/2024/09/why-you-probably-dont-need-vpn.html

Why you (probably) don't need a VPN

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/you-may-no-longer-need-vpn

Security experts say you no longer need a VPN rCo here's why

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/do-i-need-a-vpn/

Do I Need a VPN? How to Know If You Should Use a VPN

The main disadvantages of using a VPN are slower internet speeds,
potential blocking by websites/services, increased mobile data
usage, and security/privacy risks if you choose a bad provider

The topic of the security risks of using a VPN is another subject.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-12 01:28, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 08:36:18 -0500, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:40:18 -0800,
Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

- VPNs get more attention than they deserve

The only reason I can think for your 3rd point here is that they are
not needed for security, yes?

They are very much about security. The idea started with IPSec, which
is a truly mind-boggling set of mechanisms for setting up secure
layer-3 connections between networks. Other VPN apps were created as
simpler alternatives to this -- yes, even OpenVPN, with its slightly bewildering array of options, is simpler than IPSec.

And now we have WireGuard, which tries to make things about as simple
as they can be.

I feel totally safe without using a VPN.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 02:45:11 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

All the VPN services IrCOm aware of use encryption. You may call this
rCLan unnecessary and inconvenient burdenrCY, but it comes as a
standard part of the service.

It depends.

[references about not needing a VPN omitted]

But these are saying you donrCOt need a VPN at all, not that you need a
VPN without encryption.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:02:30 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I feel totally safe without using a VPN.

If yourCOre doing connections between separate LANs, that is routinely
done with a VPN these days.

For example, I regularly run a VPN connection between my office and a clientrCOs LAN. I wouldnrCOt do that without encryption.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-12 19:56, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:02:30 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I feel totally safe without using a VPN.

If yourCOre doing connections between separate LANs, that is routinely
done with a VPN these days.

For example, I regularly run a VPN connection between my office and a clientrCOs LAN. I wouldnrCOt do that without encryption.

Certainly, but that's a completely different usage. VPN vendors sell
VPNs to people telling them that it is safer, and they buy it, just as
the buy an antivirus.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

But these are saying you donrCOt need a VPN at all, not that you need a
VPN without encryption.

My original premise was that some people may benefit from a VPN and some people don't (usually) need that. I wasn't trying to rebut your point
that all VPNs do encryption.

I don't really think 'our' remarks in the same thread were at 'odds' w/
each other.

My 'main' argument is that /it seems/ that 'we' are led to believe that
we all need a VPN. I disagree w/ that argument. I don't disagree that
VPNs and other strategies serve a VERY useful purpose.

Just not for me; and not for a lot of the people who are paying for
those services. Or NOT paying while using free.

I'm a big advocate for learning about privacy methods and its strengths
and 'weaknesses' or disadvantages.

If someone wants to use a VPN, that's 'fine with me' - whether they
benefit from it or not.
--
Mike Easter
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 11:42:55 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

But these are saying you donrCOt need a VPN at all, not that you need
a VPN without encryption.

My original premise was that some people may benefit from a VPN and
some people don't (usually) need that. I wasn't trying to rebut your
point that all VPNs do encryption.

Encryption is a key part of the security feature of VPNs. If you were
trying to say the security aspect of a VPN is unnecessary, then that
must mean that the encryption part is unnecessary. The two go
together.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-13 02:31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 11:42:55 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

But these are saying you donrCOt need a VPN at all, not that you need
a VPN without encryption.

My original premise was that some people may benefit from a VPN and
some people don't (usually) need that. I wasn't trying to rebut your
point that all VPNs do encryption.

Encryption is a key part of the security feature of VPNs. If you were
trying to say the security aspect of a VPN is unnecessary, then that
must mean that the encryption part is unnecessary. The two go
together.

Even so, many people do not benefit from a VPN. I don't.

My cousin was paying an antivirus years ago, and the company had also
sold her a VPN. She did not know how to make use of it and called me. I
went, looked, and told her to drop the VPN and get the money back.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-02-12 04:46, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 17:11:06 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

They are very much about security.

Some (types of, situations of, uses of) security is good or very
good or very necessary.

Some (etc) security is an unnecessary and inconvenient burden.

All the VPN services IrCOm aware of use encryption. You may call this
rCLan unnecessary and inconvenient burdenrCY, but it comes as a standard
part of the service.

Which the VPN people can decrypt and read. Using a VPN protects me from
my ISP, but endangers me with the VPN people.

I feel safer using end to end encryption.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2