Slashdot Mirror


Cyberstalking Suspect Arrested After VPN Providers Shared Logs With the FBI (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "VPN providers often advertise their products as a method of surfing the web anonymously, claiming they never store logs of user activity," writes Bleeping Computer, "but a recent criminal case shows that at least some do store user activity logs." According to the FBI, VPN providers played a key role in identifying an aggressive cyberstalker by providing detailed logs to authorities, even if they claimed in their privacy policies that they don't. The suspect is a 24-year-old man that hacked his roommate, published her private journal, made sexually explicit collages, sent threats to schools in the victim's name, and registered accounts on adult portals, sending men to the victim's house...
FBI agents also obtained Google records on their suspect, according to a 29-page affidavit which, ironically, includes the text of one of his tweets warning people that VPN providers do in fact keep activity logs. "If they can limit your connections or track bandwidth usage, they keep logs."

212 comments

  1. Good reminder by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    This is a good reminder that you shouldn't put much faith in the claims made by service providers.

    1. Re:Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One person betrayed me so all people cannot be trusted. Solid logic.

    2. Re:Good reminder by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not the reasoning. Some are surely trustworthy. The underlying problem is that you literally have no way to tell which ones those are.

    3. Re: Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yes, actually it is solid logic. But feel free to keep getting robbed/raped/scammed for the rest of your idealistic and retarded life.

    4. Re:Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't even betray him, unless he is the cyberstalker.

    5. Re:Good reminder by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

      There NO VPNs beyond the reach of the US spy infrastructure. Those who refuse the private, closed door court room orders are locked up or if they have scruples, just skuddle their products and walk away.
      Examples; LavaBit & the original axcrypt

    6. Re:Good reminder by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      trust....but verify

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Good reminder by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      One website scammed me, so all websites cannot be trusted. Therefore, to show I trust all websites, I shall disable all firewalls.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    8. Re:Good reminder by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The more you can verify, the less you need to rely on trust. But how do you verify that a VPN provider is well-behaved?

    9. Re: Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISIS claimed responsibility so you can't blame anyone else. ae911truth dot org

    10. Re:Good reminder by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Service providers routinely have incentives to overstate the quality of their product. Perverted incentives, brought to you by capitalism. End even extreme lies can often stay undetected for a long time, see, e.g. the current nice example with diesel cars. In actual reality, at the very least, a careful check of the plausibility of such claims is necessary and almost universally you find the product is nowhere near as good as claimed. This case here is no exception.

      Of course, it is quite possible that the VPN provider in question only started keeping logs after being served with a court-order and may only handed records over that concerned this particular user. But court-orders are easy to get for all kinds of things, so any claims of anonymity from a VPN provider basically is "unless you do anything that is illegal or pisses off people powerful enough".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Good reminder by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that you would post that as "Anonymous Coward". I trust you realize that this is not actually anonymous, but only harder to trace.

      Slashdot doesn't actually pretend to offer true anonymity. Don't be fooled by the visible handle.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Good reminder by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      This is a good reminder that you shouldn't put much faith in the claims made by service providers.

      From PureVPN provider's privacy policy (linked in TFS):

      "Our servers automatically record the time at which you connect to any of our servers. From here on forward, we do not keep any records of anything that could associate any specific activity to a specific user. The time when a successful connection is made with our servers is counted as a “connection” and the total bandwidth used during this connection is called “bandwidth”. Connection and bandwidth are kept in record to maintain the quality of our service."

      These connection logs are what law enforcement used, in conjunction with information pulled from the creep's work computer and from logs obtained from Google (Gmail) and others.

      I'm not feeling the outrage.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:Good reminder by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The more you can verify, the less you need to rely on trust. But how do you verify that a VPN provider is well-behaved?

      Simple: (a) Register with multiple VPN providers. (b) Make threats against the President using different aliases through different VPNs. (c) See who the Secret Service comes looking for.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:Good reminder by TWX · · Score: 1

      Replace "Service providers" with sellers, and it's been accurate since the dawn of humanity.

      Anyone selling has incentive to make as much sales as possible, and that includes immoral or dishonest means if those means do not lead to far less sales. For businesses theoretically operating within the law this is why it's important to have groups like the consumer products safety commission and the federal trade commission, because businesses will go through whatever steps are necessary to protect themselves up-to and including hiding their bad behavior from the public to deny the public the ability to do research on them.

      For entities that operate in grey-areas of law or illegally, there's generally no good way to verify. Caveat emptor, buyer beware. Hell, that VPN service could even be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the FBI and you could be spending your $7.99 per month to be specifically logged and investigated for everything that you do on the Internet. You don't really have any way of verifying that. And an argument that the FBI facilitated you gaining access to illegal content would probably ring hollow as they did not compel you to do it, you sought to do it and made the mistake of who to trust in the process.

      In my opinion the only thing that private VPN services are good for is getting around workplace Internet filtering, to access otherwise-legal things that work may block. But in this day and age with cell phones with data plans, there's no need to incur the risk of being fired if the workplace discovers one circumventing their filtering through their own network on their own computers. Besides, aren't you supposed to be working?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    15. Re:Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, aren't you supposed to be working?

      Not if I'm staying late or browsing the Web during lunchtime.

    16. Re:Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in this case it is solid logic. When it comes to being anonymous online even more so. Wake up dipshit.

    17. Re:Good reminder by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I'm not feeling the outrage.

      I'm not even upset, let alone outraged.

    18. Re:Good reminder by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I have given up getting exceptions for Internet access via customer laptops (I do IT security consulting). Instead I have an unlimited mobile data-plan and bring my own laptop in addition. This is quite often needed to get the information I need to do my work.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re: Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link to 'sexually explicit collages'?

    20. Re:Good reminder by johanw · · Score: 1

      AND you are stupid enough to use a VPN provider in the same country where you piss off the police.

    21. Re:Good reminder by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's not the reasoning. Some are surely trustworthy. The underlying problem is that you literally have no way to tell which ones those are.

      The internet is not anonymous. Never has been, never will be unless the fundamental nature off it is changed, which will destroy the internet. The only thing that gives a person any sense of anonymity is the degree of the crime, and how badly they want to find you.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:Good reminder by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm not feeling the outrage.

      I'm not even upset, let alone outraged.

      I'm glad they caught the assole, who is both a criminal, and stupid.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:Good reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting that people are blaming the VPN provider, and not the fact that the creep was doing stuff from work, as well as using public services which don't have any anonymity. This guy wasn't exactly focusing on covering his tracks.

      Lets be real here... no VPN provider would not keep logs, otherwise they would be DDoS-ed into a hole in the ground, or local law enforcement would be shutting them down when some perv sends pics of his diaper-sniper conquests through their networks.

    24. Re:Good reminder by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You probably never heard of Interpol...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Good reminder by mentil · · Score: 2

      So he was found out by metadata? This is perhaps a good reason why govt. should require a warrant to get ahold of it.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    26. Re:Good reminder by e432776 · · Score: 1

      Good reminder indeed. Second reminder from this story: Don't be an unmitigated creep and cyber stalker. Jus sayin.

    27. Re: Good reminder by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      That's true. I use a vpn to help my privacy, but have no expectation that it would help me if i commited a serious crime. If you do, there's a good chance you'll be caught, thankfully.

      Yup. Protecting your privacy on line is very sensible. I do what I can also. Where there can be confusion is the concept of of privacy, and anonymity. Some folks get a little confused, thinking that anonymity is privacy. and vice versa.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re:Good reminder by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      you shouldn't put much faith in the claims made by service providers

      Depends on the provider. People need to do some research.

      It is not rocket science.

      Also, people who are up to clearly nasty behavior also need to make sure they don't start logging into their "normal" sites (facebook, banks, anything connected to GOOG...etc.) while using their vpn. "Shared IPs" might mitigate a bit of risk, but the enemy is perfectly capable of connecting a tagged browser with whatever IP their VPN assigns them.

      User Error is at the root of... what? 95% of the fuckups? who knows. I've seen a total of one DMCA-related 'warming' or whatever... since Napster days. Like I said, it isn't rocket science but the onus is clearly on the user to play head's up.

    29. Re:Good reminder by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      People need to do some research.

      What can you research that would tell you whether a VPN provider is being forthright about their security practices?

      It is not rocket science.

      True, it's more like mind-reading or voodoo.

    30. Re:Good reminder by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No US-based VPN provider is going to protect your privacy against a US search warrant. Not and stay in business, anyway. The only way they can protect the client is to not keep log information. (After the Patriot Act, the American Library Association issued a strong recommendation that libraries not keep any information on who checked out what in the past, all records to be discarded when an item is returned.)

      So, you have to know what sort of log data the provider keeps to judge how well the provider will protect your privacy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Good reminder by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but search warrants are easy for law enforcement to get given probable cause (and, unfortunately, sometimes easy to get without it).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:Good reminder by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Okay so you're a know-nothing. Congratulations! Meanwhile, I continue to use my VPN, one of 4 that I rotate through, over the last eight years, with zero interference. Just lucky, I guess,, huh, fuckhead?

  2. Sounds HIGHLY ILLEGAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something up for which we must not stand!

  3. Well now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for sure one VPN not to buy from.

  4. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So which VPN service is going out of business today?

    1. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I get that you havenâ(TM)t bothered open one of the links? Itâ(TM)s PureVPN, which claims in yuge font that âoewe do not keep logâ and âoeyou are invisibleâ

    2. Re: So by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And WANSecurity.

      But the take-home lesson here shouldn't be that if you avoid those you're good. The lesson is that in the end, you're taking every provider's word for security. Certainly some are good and some aren't, but there is literally no way for you to be able to tell which ones are good.

    3. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why you have to use seven.

    4. Re: So by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      And WANSecurity.

      But the take-home lesson here shouldn't be that if you avoid those you're good. The lesson is that in the end, you're taking every provider's word for security. Certainly some are good and some aren't, but there is literally no way for you to be able to tell which ones are good.

      I'd primarily use a VPN provider to make life harder for the RIAA, MPAA, Sony, HBO, and the rest of that ilk and to make it harder for them to identify me and then sue me for damages because they themselves forced me to torrent their movies and music because of their own artificial trade barriers (and I'd preferably use a VPN service headquartered in Europe to make it that little bit harder since most of these corps are US based which significantly increases the legal complexities). I have no delusions about a simple VPN service shielding me from a determined FBI/CIA/MI6/BND/FSB/NSA/DGSE effort to identify me. If those guys really want you, they are going to get you, just ask Osama.

    5. Re:So by gweihir · · Score: 1

      None. Anybody sane already knows VPNs are not secure if anybody can get a court-order against them. All the others are to dumb to care.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA: FBI managed to obtain logs from two VPN providers â" PureVPN and WANSecurity

    7. Re: So by TWX · · Score: 1

      That's proxies. Not VPN providers.

      And seven wasn't enough, remember?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re: So by west · · Score: 1

      because they themselves forced me to torrent their movies and music

      By the time my son was five, he already understood that the "he forced me to do it" defense is, unless someone literally has a gun to your head, a cowardly lie.

      Time to take responsibility for your own actions. It's what adults do.

    9. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. Was wondering why the actual providers were not mentioned in the summary.

    10. Re: So by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      As a PureVPN lifetime customer, this is disappointing on PureVPN's side. At least it sounds like they didn't rat out the traffic, but did origin IP address, which is pretty damning in most cases.

      I would also like to point out, that PureVPN was being sold right here on the Slashdot site for lifetime memebership for quite a while (maybe still). That is the offer that I grabbed a year or two ago. While I use it mostly to protect my privacy when using open hotspots or hotel/shared wifi connections, and also occasionally for torrents (legal linux ISO's only!), that I think it would still be fairly reliable for this, however it's never good to know that if you've been targeted, there is enough info to use against you being logged.

      bummer. At least I knew this was a possibility and am not shocked, just more disappointed.

    11. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, but you know there at more ways to force someone that don't require any guns.

      And if you disagree with these megacorps a boycott won't do shit. You have to steal to make a point.
      Why should any business be allowed to set its own laws? Don't even get me started on how they get to enforce bought US law all over the planet.
      Why should any business be allowed to inspect itself either?
      By the time I was 5 I learned most people are idiots and will fall for just about anything a person in a suit says. I also learned the person in the suit never pays full price for anything either. Seriously, just shoot the guy in the suit already.

    12. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look at VPNs for tiers of protection. One tier is keeping my stuff away from some information hungry ISP or wireless AP provider that might be wanting to inject ads in transit. Another tier is torrenting a Linux ISO. Still another tier is LEOs, and the final tier is the TLAs.

      TLAs... game over. They control the vertical and horizontal on the Internet.
      LEOs... I don't give a rat's ass about. They have other fish to fry with real leads.
      *AAs... I use an offshore VPN because Lower Elbonia doesn't give a rat's ass if I'm downloading the latest Doom movie sequel, and they are not going to be bothered enforcing a court order from a place they can't stand.
      Dealing with the local ISPs who use Phorm or stick identifying tags in HTTP handshakes... this is what I mainly use VPNs for.

    13. Re: So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much this. Don't like the mega-corps? Don't consume their product. Thank me later.

  5. Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... you'll be anonymous, they said.

    I'm bookmarking this article for reference material for the VPN fanbois.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

      All a VPN really does is prevent your local ISP provider from monetizing your surfing habits. Which is enough for me.

    2. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Get a VPN they said ... you'll be anonymous, they said.

      You will be anonymous until the VPN gets a warrant for specific information.

      If you want to be entirely anonymous then you will need to set up proxies using multiple hacked IoT devices in nations that will not cooperate.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's all a VPN does for you , which is irrelevant to what Pure VPN says it does for others.

      PureVPN operates a self-managed VPN network that currently stands at 750+ Servers in 141 Countries. But is this enough to ensure complete security? That's why PureVPN has launched advanced features to add proactive, preventive and complete security. There are no third-parties involved and NO logs of your activities .

      Emphasis mine.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If you want to be entirely anonymous then you will need to set up proxies using multiple hacked IoT devices in nations that will not cooperate.

      So say you.

      Where do you publish your guarantee, and how do we know you're not outright lying like Pure VPN is?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Except that, according to TFA, Pure is lying when they say that.

    6. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also forces the security services to actively target you and expend some extra effort to get your data.

      In some countries, e.g. the UK, ISPs are required to log and hand over such data pretty much on demand to the police, and of course you have outfits like GCHQ and the NSA doing mass surveillance.

      A VPN increases to cost to spy on you from nearly zero to something that will discourage casual snooping and a lot of abuse. It's not perfect but it's a useful line of defence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by Ramze · · Score: 2

      VPNs aren't meant to keep people anonymous. They just obscure the origin IP address enough to where an average site may not know for certain who is visiting and law enforcement would have to request account connection details -- time and origin of connection, user name, actual name, length of time of connection, bandwidth usage, etc. Sure, VPNs don't usually record what sites you visit, but the sites themselves keep detailed logs that include the IP address of the VPN used... which in this situation correlates well with the VPN's logs. It's strong evidence, but not proof.

      People often don't realize that advertisers love creating profiles of people -- and tracking cookies are great for creating, tracking, and linking profiles so that no matter where one logs in from -- even a VPN -- you can be identified... if only by the user/agent string and hardware you're using to access the web.

      This moron logged into the victim's e-mail address and the abuser's email address within moments of each other from the SAME IP address on the VPN. If that VPN shows he logged into their service and was assigned that IP address just before accessing them and logged out shortly after accessing both, that's pretty damning.

      PureVPN didn't lie about what it records... but, it didn't have to record much other than the connection info and bandwidth use to correlate strongly with what the investigators already knew from inspecting a laptop and contacting the 2 e-mail services.

    8. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      VPNs aren't meant to keep people anonymous.

      Yes, this is exactly correct. VPNs don't disguise endpoints or decorrelate access times.

      Personally, I use a VPN solely so that I don't have to worry quite as much when I'm connecting through WiFi access points that I don't control (open access points, workplace WiFi, etc.).

      I'm not even trying to hide from my ISP (since, at some point, my datastream is going to be exposed to an ISP anyway -- at least this way, I know which one I'm exposed to). So, I don't use a third party VPN. I run my own VPN server, and my devices all use that.

      Security is always a tradeoff, and others may not find this one acceptable for their situation and preferences. But it works for me.

    9. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Precisely.

      Which leads to the next question: Are other or all VPN providers lying?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    10. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I think it's safe to assume three things: some are lying, some are honest, and we can't really distinguish between the two.

    11. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Cyberstalking generally isn't something that people who are good at thinking things through and restricting their behaviors accordingly do.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      VPNs aren't meant to keep people anonymous.

      Really? From their site:.

      Anonymity: PureVPN replaces your real IP with one of our abundant IPs, allowing you to use the internet freely whilst remaining completely invisible.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    13. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by qbast · · Score: 1

      You can't verify their claims in any way so assume they do.

    14. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      And I would add that people who think they can outsmart other people are not clever enough to do so.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    15. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      people who think they can outsmart other people are not clever enough to do so.

      Well, they can outsmart some people, but yes. If you really think you're the smartest one in the room, then your comeuppance is only a matter of time -- and usually, not very much time.

    16. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Agree.

      I've been at this for over 30 years and I've found that the best way to avoid capture is to refrain from risky behaviour.

      There's a lot that I could do, (as can you), but I know there are people like us who can catch people like us.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    17. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That's just Pure being deceptive. The point that VPNs aren't designed to keep you anonymous is true regardless of what they say.

    18. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      True. However, the uninformed will jump all over that statement by PureVPN and run with it.

      I think deceptive trade practices should apply, but predict that a lot of sites would be quickly editing their narrative.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    19. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and NO logs of your activities.

      Well, they are correct. I mean, you can't be thinking that just connecting and disconnecting are activities, can you ? Not as "browsing the web" or "downloading" is surely. Nope, those (whatever "those" is a placeholder for) are just for housekeeping and billing*.

      Simply said, what you think they said and what they ment with what they said could be (and often is) rather different, with possibly you being easily placated (gullible), the company being deliberatily obtruse, or anything in between.

      And than there are ofcourse the companies which downright lie about what they do or don't, as they know as well as you do that you have absolutily zero way to verify their claims -- and often no recourse when you find out. In that regard companies are no different than most people.

      *Also remember that there are countries where certain kind of activities must be kept (by law) for a period often spanning years. If not for investigations, than for tax purposes.

    20. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? From their site:.

      Well, you certainly are comparing apples with ... teddybears there. :-\

      Yes, people connecting thru their service are fully anonymous to the sites those people connect to. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like the line you quoted says it.

      Are those people anonymous to the VPN company itself ? Are you FULLY anonymous to your own ISP ? Are you (still) anonymous when you send your personal data over VPN ? Ofcourse not, and as everybody knows that we do not even think and/or speak of it.

      Yes, I know that that last example is stupid. But I also know that stupidity knows no boundaries, and for some people this will actually be news ...

      But thats the problem: most people only hear what they want to hear, and often throw tantrums when they are pointed to the bleeding obvious.

      And one of those "bleeding obvious" things is that everyone, companies included, must obey the laws of the country they reside in. Which could well include them being required to keep certain ... statistics if you will. ... Which have been summoned and subsequently handed over. As required by law. Its as simple as that.

    21. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't really assert that any are honest, unless you consider deceptive phrasing honest. There's a small amount of evidence that those which actually are honest are regularly put out of business by government officials.

      So you can rephrase that as: some are lying, some may be honest, and we can't really distinguish between the two. But the honest ones may be an empty set.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    22. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      "The moron" believed the promises made on the services web page. There seem to be a lot of people here that accept deceptive phraseology as honest, but it's interesting that many of them post as Anonymous Coward. One might almost think someone has hired a reputation management company.

      That said, I agree with your statements about the design of VPNs. But that's not saying what the company that's selling the service promises. And the promise *could* be essentially correct, if they actually never saved the logs from RAM to disk. Which is possible, but unlikely...and currently proven false in the case of PureVPN...or whatever its name is.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you stack VPNs in two different countries.

    24. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no third-parties involved and NO logs of your activities .

      It should be pretty clear to anyone with a grasp of language that PureVPN's claim above only applies to PureVPN, their service, and their actions.

      You can't expect services you connect to like Gmail and Hotmail to not keep connection logs just because you signed up with PureVPN

      Right?

      The logs involved here that the police have came from two separate email services, not PureVPN.
      Those two email services showed logins from the same IP address at the same time.

      That alone proves a connection between each of those email accounts.
      It doesn't matter if that one IP address belongs to PureVPN, your home Internet provider, or anyone else. The fact it is the exact same one is all that's required to show it was from the same IP.

    25. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Well... even if you genuinely are the smartest person in the room, the second and third smartest people in the room, working together, are smarter than you. Only a few people in the world are ever so much smarter than everyone else as to leave any potential rival in the dust. Those people tend to wind up having elements or units of measurement named after them.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    26. Re: Get a VPN they said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now the VPN provider does it instead of your ISP. Your VPN provider is basically your ISP now.

    27. Re: Get a VPN they said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if the VPN was only storing connection info, how did they know both emails where logged into?

      The must have had the info from the email server. All the VPN needed to tell them was who was using the IP at the time to talk to the email server.

    28. Re:Get a VPN they said ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I think it's safe to assume three things: some are lying, some are honest, and we can't really distinguish between the two.

      Here's the truth.

      ALL VPN PROVIDERS LOG. All of them. They have to.

      The question is how long they retain that log.

      Why do they log? Easy - they need to maintain accounting information - after all, you can't log into a VPN service more than N times (N = dependent on provider - some allow one connection each per type - PPTP, OpenVPN, etc, others allow only one connection in total, others may allow two or more connections).. So obviously if you're logged in (hint: logged), there's a log entry in some database somewhere - you're logged into some VPN server.

      If they don't log, they won't survive because you can buy one account and share it with all your friends.

      Oh, and while you're on, they log you connection information - which server and for how long. Also, while you're logged in, your username and final VPN server IP is associated with each other.

      MOST good providers will, upon disconnecting, delete that log entry, so there is no longer any association between you and the VPN IP address you were using.

      Also, there is something called a "Real Time DMCA" - you can collect copyright notices in real time.

      So here are the tips for using a VPN properly:

      1) NEVER use any sort of "port forward" function on the VPN. There is nothing that will identify you quicker than a port forward that is now an association between your activity, your account, your computer and you. Sorry, but since a listening port is associated with a target user's PC (i.e., yours), this is a really good way to identify a user (real time DMCA).

      2) NEVER use a server that isn't busy. Real Time DMCA notices do not have to be delivered if the VPN provider cannot positively identify a user. If there is more than one user on a VPN server, it is no longer practical to identify which user did the activity. The activity will include source and destination ports, so if you're rotating your connections quickly, then the identifiers will be stale. (Another reason to not use port forwarding)

      3) ALWAYS reconnect periodically. Once a day at least - it helps you avoid identification because it will rotate your outgoing IP on a regular basis as well as reset your VPN provider's log. DMCA requests will fail if you're not connected when they arrive. If you're especially paranoid, reconnect hourly.

  6. So don't use PureVPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Alright then.

    1. Re:So don't use PureVPN by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Pure VPN says, in writing, that they do not log.

      What VPN would you suggest, and how do you know they actually do what they say they do ... in writing?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:So don't use PureVPN by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What VPN would you suggest, and how do you know they actually do what they say they do ... in writing?

      PIA. They've also been tested in court as keeping no logs at all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:So don't use PureVPN by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your response, supported by a reference link.

      Thanks.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:So don't use PureVPN by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Actually, they say "Our servers automatically record the time at which you connect to any of our servers." My guess would hence be that, legally, they do not log, but they do keep records.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:So don't use PureVPN by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you missed my earlier post where I copy/paste directly from PureVPN:

      PureVPN operates a self-managed VPN network that currently stands at 750+ Servers in 141 Countries. But is this enough to ensure complete security? That's why PureVPN has launched advanced features to add proactive, preventive and complete security. There are no third-parties involved and NO logs of your activities .

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:So don't use PureVPN by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I did quote directly from their privacy policy. No idea why you think I missed anything here, this is literally on their site.

      If indeed "records" and "logs" are different legally (no idea whether they are), then "no logs of your activities" would not even be a lie. There would just be records of your log-ins and log-outs, but no logs. It is also possible, that the log-in and log-out does not count legally as "activity" within the context of the service. And to make the deception complete, "complete security" is a term without meaning, i.e. it gives you no assurances whatsoever.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:So don't use PureVPN by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's not complicated, OK?

      Cyberstalking Suspect Arrested After VPN Providers Shared Logs With the FBI

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re: So don't use PureVPN by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck, you think all headlines on the Internet are true and accurate? There's ample just on /. that are wrong and misleading. You might have heard of a thing called "click bait"? Fuck, you should change your nick to Captain fucking Dumb

    9. Re: So don't use PureVPN by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      PROTIP:

      Xanax, when taken as directed, is a safe and effective palindrome. ~ © 2017 CaptainDork

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    10. Re:So don't use PureVPN by will_die · · Score: 1

      I use expressvpn, more expensive but I mainly use it to change my location to show me in the USA and they are speedier for watching videos.
      If you do a search for reviews there are lots around and purevpn is usually ranked very low because people testing the security either could not or they leaked data in their software.

    11. Re:So don't use PureVPN by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is what some journalist wrote. They actually shared records with the FBI. The question is whether legally, that is a difference.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:So don't use PureVPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "NO logs of your activities" is the sales talk, the privacy policy which states that they DO log some things and DO share them with authorities in some circumstances is much more relevant for what you can expect of them.

      The sales talk contains at least one lie, of course, but sales talks often do and for some reason western (and many other) societies treat those lies as if they are perfectly acceptable. Detergents were already perfect in the 1970, according to ads, and probably long before that, but somehow they keep improving them, according to more recent ads. This is no different. Always read the fine print.

  7. Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Half of America wonders when the FBI will arrest Twitler fo "grabbing 'em by the pussy", which is surely worse than mere stalking.

    1. Re:Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking about something worse than actually doing something. Surely.. Surely..

    2. Re:Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of America wonders when the FBI will arrest Twitler fo "grabbing 'em by the pussy", which is surely worse than mere stalking.

      Yep, those would be the same hypocrites who won''t say anything about big Democrat Harvey Weinstein dropping trou and beating off in front of a woman he cornered.

      The Huffington Post is such a source of right-wing conspiracies...

      What'd Meryl Streep say about Trump?

      Oh yeah: "Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose."

      So, Meryl, what you got to say about DEMOCRAT Harvey Weinstein?

      Oh, yeah, nothing.

    3. Re: Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harvey should have grabbed her by the pussy first then he could just say he was following the presidents lead.

    4. Re:Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you confess, I suspect most people are inclined to believe you actually did the thing you confessed to.

      Or do you know something the rest of us don't know?

    5. Re:Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What'd Meryl Streep say about Trump?

      Oh yeah: "Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose."

      So, Meryl, what you got to say about DEMOCRAT Harvey Weinstein?

      Oh, yeah, nothing.

      What a fucking douche you are. You yourself quoted Streep as saying "Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose."

      Then you try to imply that somehow that doesn't or didn't apply to Weinstein too.

      How do you figure that? I don't see anything in what you quoted that says "except Democrats" or "except Harvey Weinstein."

      But you don't have your own agenda do you? Nope, not at all. I suggest you go crawl back under your rock you piece of dog excrement.

    6. Re: Arrest for mere cyber stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperbolic ego inflation isn't a crime.

  8. Vendors used by will_die · · Score: 1

    VPN vendors were PureVPN and WANSecurity.
    He also used a secure email and Tor but no indication that logs or info was pulled from those.

    --For the karma whoring.

    1. Re:Vendors used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is true: "VPN vendors were PureVPN and WANSecurity."

      Pure VPN Privacy Policy

      We Do Not monitor user activity nor do we keep any logs. We therefore have no record of your activities such as which software you used, which websites you visited, what content you downloaded, which apps you used, etc. after you connected to any of our servers. Our servers automatically record the time at which you connect to any of our servers. From here on forward, we do not keep any records of anything that could associate any specific activity to a specific user. The time when a successful connection is made with our servers is counted as a “connection” and the total bandwidth used during this connection is called “bandwidth”. Connection and bandwidth are kept in record to maintain the quality of our service. This helps us understand the flow of traffic to specific servers so we could optimize them better.

    2. Re:Vendors used by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1
      You need to read further into the document:

      Information Sharing and Disclosure

      PureVPN specifically chose Hong Kong (HK) for its headquarter because there are "No Mandatory Data Retention Laws" in Hong Kong We are therefore, not legally obliged to store user data and share it with anyone.

      Since PureVPN is committed to freedom, and doesn't support crime, we will only share information with authorities having valid subpoenas, warrants, other legal documents or with alleged victims having clear proof of any such activity. It goes without saying that we will only do so in the best interest of our customers and our company. When and if a competent court of law orders us or an alleged victim requests us (that we rigorously self-assess) to release some information, with proper evidence, that our services were used for any activity that you agreed not to indulge in when you agreed to our Terms of Service Agreement, then we will only present specific information about that specific activity only, provided we have the record of any such activity.

      Personally I am glad that there are ways to connect malicious activities like this to the malefactor. The guy is getting what he deserves.

    3. Re:Vendors used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'We Do Not monitor user activity nor do we keep any logs. We therefore have no record of your activities such as which software you used, which websites you visited, what content you downloaded, which apps you used, etc. blablabla...^

      We just log your IP address.
      And that's exactly what people did not expect.

    4. Re:Vendors used by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The guy is getting what he deserves.

      I'm glad that this scumbag got caught.

      But at the same time, it's important to remind people that they may not be as secure as they're assuming, so that innocent people don't get caught out.

    5. Re:Vendors used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personally I am glad that there are ways to connect malicious activities like this to the malefactor. The guy is getting what he deserves.

      It's easy to agree this guy is a scum bag. The concern always comes back around to whistleblowers, unfavorable speech, etc. We're already in a surveillance society that chills free speech. I know what that guy did goes beyond voicing a dissenting opinion.

      My hope for the world is that the general level of personal integrity rises. If that happened a lot of these problems would go away. I know wishing doesn't make it so, but I think that is the answer to a lot of these social woes. It's up to each of you to find it within yourselves to deal with your demons/issues. Even if you can take advantage of someone in some situation you face daily, is that right? Right now it seems like most people are only interested in whatever personal advantage they can achieve in a situation using whatever kind of lying/bending of the truth, omission, etc. The only way things will get better is if people live with integrity and view the world more wholistically to try and take actions that benefit everyone rather than only themselves.

      The thing I worry about is:

      1) the company wants you to believe you are 100% anonymous and nothing you do through their service will be tracked back to you but it's not really true, but we'll say it to take your money

      2) because the gov has such wide reaching power to put traces and track down people as the public environment gets more and more divisive and hostile you need to conform or face repercussions.

      3) it's not even the gov you have to worry about if you express an unpopular opinion, mob rule and moderation systems will make sure you're suppressed.

      There's a risk here that you can have total centralization of control, media, information flow. If you voice decent you disappear in the night. I know that doesn't directly correlate to what this guy did but it does correlate to the use of VPN tech to try and express yourself or express an idea without fear of the regime/mafia in power ruining your life for asking questions or suggesting something that doesn't follow their agenda. IMO even with the bad actors, we should have access to strong encryption and anonymizing tech. The people who seek power and complete control over us will gladly take any example of a bad actor behaving badly to trumpet far and wide why the people aren't allowed and can't be trusted to have such things. In the mean time it's very convenient for the existing regime that they have as much control as possible.

    6. Re:Vendors used by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Tor has no logs. This has been tested and verified, also bu diverse law-enforcement agencies, time and again. That does not make Tor absolutely secure, large traffic analysis, insecure user behavior and zero-days in the browser (or failure to update) can still de-anonymize Tor users though. The Tor project has a nice collection of documents on these things.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  9. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Megol · · Score: 1

    Please don't post your sexual fantasies. There are forums where that may be appropriate but this isn't one.

  10. What kind of dumbass uses VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of idiot uses any VPN provider without first going through some intermediary like Tor. Well, fuck, why not just use Tor in the first place?

    I'm pretty sure this is what hackers use because more than once my servers have been reconfigured to host Tor, I2P, or Freenet. They haven't seemed to do anything with the server itself, just start these network proxies. What the actual Fuck.

    1. Re:What kind of dumbass uses VPN? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you depend on Tor you better not get the Feds after you. It's *probably* safe against anyone else, but, IIRC, the Feds were reported own enough of the exit nodes to track you. That was a few years ago, but I doubt they've decreased their penetration.

      Still, it's probably more secure than a VPN is even designed to be.

      But do note all the "probably"s in my comments. And recall that Google is working hard on getting a quantum computer to perform well. (And it's not the only gang so working.) So almost all of the security in use on the internet has to be considered temporary. The only exceptions, currently, are one time pads and anything that doesn't get recorded (and how can you tell). But "temporary" may mean 10 years, and it may mean 20 years. That's long enough for many purposes. (I consider widespread use within less than 10 years quite unlikely.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:What kind of dumbass uses VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on your browsing habits. Download the latest .mp4... I think you're probably OK.

    3. Re:What kind of dumbass uses VPN? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've been told, by people who appear to know what they're talking about, that quantum computers are limited in what they can do. For example, they can cut the effective key length for a cipher in half, but not more. That would mean that AES-256 is invulnerable to brute-force attacks using quantum computers (at least using only the current resources of the entire Solar System).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  11. VPN safe if you used established ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-s...

    Never heard of these VPN services, but if you stick to VPNs that have been reviewed and tested for privacy over the years they are fine. See above link for good reviews..noticed PUREVPN was never reviewed?

    1. Re:VPN safe if you used established ones by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That list doesn't really mean anything, though. All they've done is ask providers questions and ranked them according to the provided answers. There has been no independent verification of the provider's practices or technical security, so there's no way to tell if the answers were complete and honest.

    2. Re:VPN safe if you used established ones by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      How do you know that reviewed VPNs don't keep logs?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  12. PureVPN makes no privacy warranty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just looked over PureVPN's site and policies and they make no claim about logging one way or the other. Which means that they log everything.

    VPNs are really only ever intended for general purpose anonymity any how. If you are compelled to engage in illegal activity you should be using non-repudiable uplinks and not those you pay for with your credit card then use everyday to log in to your email and the rest of your heavily logged web accounts.

    1. Re:PureVPN makes no privacy warranty by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I just looked over PureVPN's site and policies and they make no claim about logging one way or the other.

      Not true. TFA links to Pure's page where they specifically claim that they do not log your activities. That page has even been quoted a couple of times by other commenters.

    2. Re:PureVPN makes no privacy warranty by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... they make no claim about logging one way or the other.

      You just blew it in an obvious way.

      PureVPN operates a self-managed VPN network that currently stands at 750+ Servers in 141 Countries. But is this enough to ensure complete security? That's why PureVPN has launched advanced features to add proactive, preventive and complete security. There are no third-parties involved and NO logs of your activities .

      Emphasis mine.

      Shame on you.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  13. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did this really happen? Or is Megol correct in saying that OP is shitposting?

  14. Idiot deserves to get arrested. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0

    It was his room mate. With physical access to the machine, if he can not get a key logger in or video tape log ins to capture credentials that idiot deserves everything that's coming to him. Jeez, people like him bring bad name to all evil people.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Idiot deserves to get arrested. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      I feel very bad making such an inane joke about a serious matter.

      Down vote this post to oblivion, please.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Misleading by Ramze · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of the damning info came from a laptop, and all the VPNs did was confirm an IP address for his residence was used to connect to one of their IP addresses during the same time frame "someone" logged into both the victim's e-mail account and the abuser's e-mail account -- both from the same VPN address.

    PureVPN lists what data it records and states it cooperates with investigations. The only thing I can find that they gave to investigators that wasn't explicitly stated in the TOS was that they gave the origin IP address for the connection. but... the TOS already says they store the name of the person on the account and connection times and bandwidth anyway, so that's pretty damning to begin with if requested by law enforcement.

    Basically, Law Enforcement said:

    "Hey we have a laptop with evidence that you have a VPN and have accessed both the victim's and the abuser's e-mail addresses. We just checked with the e-mail services and discovered a login to both from a VPN IP address within a short time period."

    And the VPN provider upon court order said:

    "That user was logged into our service from their residential IP address during that time and was connected to that same VPN IP address (along with many other users). Here's the amount of time they were on our system and the amount of bandwidth they used."

    The VPN didn't rat out what site they went to -- but the sites they went to DID keep IP logs.

    In short, the VPN service provided exactly what it said it would record and it just happened to correlate nicely with what the detectives found. It's not proof, but it's strong evidence.

    Frankly, I'm a little surprised the victim's e-mail service allowed a connection to a VPN IP to begin with. I'm also surprised this moron thought that just because a VPN doesn't record every site you visit that the sites themselves wouldn't be recording every login and IP address along with cookies that might identify his specific hardware and/or tie into a social media profile or the like.

    1. Re:Misleading by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, this is a good and important point.

      Encrypting your actual payload data is insufficient (metadata is often just as revealing as payload data). That's why the more skilled hackers and criminals use multiple VPNs along with services that decorrelate access times.

    2. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First sentence on their privacy-policy page says: "We Do Not (bold letters, too) monitor user activity nor do we keep ANY logs." But then they proceed to say we collect this, and that, etc.

      Contradicting much?

    3. Re:Misleading by p.g.king · · Score: 1

      It's tricky wording. That sentence qualifies itself with after you connected to any of our servers. i.e. we do log the connection, just not what you do with it.

    4. Re:Misleading by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Entirely plausible. They would not record actual traffic, that would probably have them go out of business. Connection time and user name is almost always enough to identify the user if you have a few more of these. And then you can get a search-warrant.

      In the end, this person just violated too many of the rules to stay anonymous online.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Misleading by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They do not keep any logs, but they do "automatically record the time at which you connect to any of our servers". Probably, in legalese, records and logs are different things.

      When there is enough activity, these logs.... pardon me, "records", are quite enough to identify a single user. As they claim to have 10M users, having as little as 10 or so observed malicious actions may already be enough to filter the potential users down to a number small enough to check individually whether they plausibly could be the attacker.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re: Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But based on that VPN's ToS they should have gave up the times and bandwidth for his account, but NOT his origin IP Address. If VPNs give out origin IP addresses it removes half the point of a VPN in the first place.

    7. Re:Misleading by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      and that's why you use 7 proxies, kids

  16. Roll your own by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You could roll your own VPN by purchasing a VPS and routing your traffic through it but even that will only give you a little bit more privacy. At some point the data that you send will have to be decrypted in order to be sent out to the internet at large. Authorities can see the point at which the decryption is taking place and trace it back to that end-point IP address. It is a trivial matter to see who the IP address belongs to. The VPS provider could then be issued a subpoena to get your information. The whole VPN thing is really misunderstood. It's really a way to make it harder for an ISP to grab and monetize your browsing data or even a way to protect your identity on an untrusted network.

    1. Re:Roll your own by Ayano · · Score: 2

      The internet is forever, you can't really disappear on the grid as much as one would like to believe. You can hide, but you'll be found in time.

      The best defense is not to do dumb stuff in the first place.

      --
      I don't read AC
    2. Re:Roll your own by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The best defense is not to do dumb stuff in the first place.

      That doesn't protect you from other entities doing dumb or abusive stuff, though.

  17. She is not the only victim here. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division. “This kind of behavior is not a prank, and it isn't harmless. He allegedly scared innocent people, and disrupted their daily lives, because he was blinded by his obsession. No one should feel unsafe in their own home, school, or workplace, and the FBI and our law enforcement partners hope today's arrest will deter others from engaging in similar criminal conduct.”

    This jerk has degraded the trustworthiness of ALL bomb threat calls, ALL emergency distress calls. As incidents like this increase, as people figure out better ways to hide their tracks, more people will do such things. In the end the police and emergency services will take time to check veracity and trustworthiness of the caller before responding. False alarms will increase cost for all tax payers. Some stalking victims could actually be raped or violated due to such postings.

    This guy is evil, he should be punished so severely others don't even fantasize doing such things.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Yosho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This guy is evil, he should be punished so severely others don't even fantasize doing such things.

      Unfortunately, severely punishing somebody for a crime has a negligible effect on discouraging anybody else from committing the same crime. I guarantee that at no point did this person ever think, "I wonder what happened to others who have stalked and harassed people? What's my risk vs. reward ratio here?"

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:She is not the only victim here. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, severely punishing somebody for a crime has a negligible effect on discouraging anybody else from committing the same crime. I guarantee that at no point did this person ever think, "I wonder what happened to others who have stalked and harassed people? What's my risk vs. reward ratio here?"

      Then, pray tell, what would have non-negligible deterrent effect?

      Are you claiming people don't fear punishment or getting caught at all?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:She is not the only victim here. by JohnFen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Citing "deterrence" is very often a thin disguise over the real intent: vengeance.

    4. Re:She is not the only victim here. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Whats wrong with vengeance? As long as the target of vengeance deserved it, As long as the amount of vengeance is comparable to the amount of affront, I see nothing wrong in vengeance.

      You, of course, retain the right to refrain from vengeance. You have the right not to file charges when you are the victim.

      You also have the right to tell other victims to give up vengeance, not to file charges and practice universal love.

      And they have the right to ask you to go fly a kite.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who decideds if someone is deserving of vengeance? Who decides if the vengeance is comparible to the amount of affront? How do you accuratly gauge affront?

      The reason we, as a society, decided a long time ago that vengeance is a bad idea is because the only way to answer those questions is to ask the victim. Victims do not generally think clearly with regards to vengeance and retribution. Vengeance is a base instinct that does not serve society.

      Go fly a kite.

    6. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's claiming that the severity of the punishment for a crime very rarely has any motivating factor on the criminals one way or another. Most criminals do not think they will get caught, which is why they commit crimes. The idea that the severity of the crime demotivates people to commit it is hinged on the idea of a criminal believing they will be caught for the crime, in which case it's only a motivating factor if the punishment is extremely light or heavy. Emphasis extremely.

      You rightly point out that people fear punishment and getting caught. Based on that why do people commit crimes? Ultimatly because they think the punishment wont happen to them. This is really obvious stuff here.

      No one needs to have an alternative penal system in mind before they point this out. You can identify a fact without having some scheme to solve it.

    7. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No, "we as a society" decided no such thing. We punish people in jail, and execute murderers. You can rephrase those things, but they are vengeance nevertheless.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Yosho · · Score: 1

      No, "we as a society" decided no such thing. We punish people in jail, and execute murderers. You can rephrase those things, but they are vengeance nevertheless.

      And the rest of the civilized world outside of the USA considers the USA's prison system to be barbaric and abusive, so there's that.

      Most people who have actually taken the time to think about it agree that the purpose of incarceration is to either reform criminals into productive members of society or to separate out the ones who can't be reformed so that they can't cause any more harm. Prioritizing revenge is primitive, bloodthirsty, and doesn't actually make anything better.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    9. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A civilized society that values equality among its citizens seeks to standardize the vengeance so that everybody gets the similar proportional punishment for a similar act, qualitatively and quantitatively speaking. An organized system of justice exists to fulfill this purpose. Some deterrence is only created when the vengeance, or punishment of the society is widely communicated among the population.

    10. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Yosho · · Score: 2

      Are you claiming people don't fear punishment or getting caught at all?

      No, the fear of punishment is a deterrent, but the degree of punishment is almost irrelevant,
        and "making an example" out of somebody has no effect at all. (although it's entertaining how when the subject of gun control comes up, gun nuts will insist that in that particular case, gun control laws won't have any effect at all...)

      Then, pray tell, what would have non-negligible deterrent effect?

      Unfortunately, there isn't a single, easy answer to that. You'd need to investigate the criminal's history and motives to determine what caused them to think their actions were reasonable in the first place and address that.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    11. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is evil

      Yes, he is, but that does not diminish the need for secure communications that cannot be traced or hindered in any way by anybody.

      So, obviously we have confirmed that bought and paid for services cannot be trusted, what's the next step? For instance, how do we spoof our IP without using untrustworthy proxy services?

    12. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actually two different kinds of "deterrence" -

      1) Recidivism - we know that longer sentences don't actually affect this.
      2) Containment - being in prison makes it harder to commit crimes, this does work to some degree, though for violent people, sometimes they just end up being violent against the other prisoners or guards.

      Maybe it's true that some people just need medical help or whatever to stop committing crimes, but as long as we can't get them to stop, it's rational to contain the damage they do.

      Your arguments are purely your own ideas of morality, though, they don't speak to any level of rationality, so you should be aware that they're not persuasive, because people either agree with you or they don't. And while those morals may help you feel like a good person, they won't persuade someone who doesn't want to see their father released from prison for murder on allegedly compassionate grounds when said person wrote out a hit list of family members before being imprisoned and convicted of murder.

      It's simply not rational to see if he'll murder again or not, you know?

    13. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No bomb threats are credible. If someone wanted to blow something up they just blow it up, they don't call the police warning them that they're going to blow it up by 3pm.

    14. Re:She is not the only victim here. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      No. We did not decide vengeance is a bad thing. We agreed private vengeance is a bad thing. We created a formal process to take vengeance, we agreed to give up our right to seek personal vengeance, with the understanding the State with all its power and glory will take vengeance on our behalf.

      Don't confuse it with US Constitution and 1776. Not even the Magna Carta. State taking our the monopoly to mete out vengeance is at least 5000 years old, possibly older.

      Fore people, Kalahari bushmen and some tribes of South America are the few remnants that survived into recorded history where they practiced individual pursuit of vengeance and justice. That system would not scale, and would not work beyond extended kinship and tribal bonds.

      Early religious texts give us clues about how the transformation took place from private vengeance to the formal practice of filing grievances and taking revenge through the collective action of peer groups.

      You have lived in such a peaceful and placid place all your life you probably truly believe in the power of love and all vengeance is bad. But not punishing the rule breakers will have very serious consequences to the stability of the society. Game theory would mar you as a "universal cooperator, a free rider in the society made peaceful by other actors who punished defection".

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    15. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who decideds if someone is deserving of vengeance? Who decides if the vengeance is comparible to the amount of affront? How do you accuratly gauge affront?

      The reason we, as a society, decided a long time ago that vengeance is a bad idea is because the only way to answer those questions is to ask the victim. Victims do not generally think clearly with regards to vengeance and retribution. Vengeance is a base instinct that does not serve society.

      I think you are conflating vengeance with justice a bit.

      The second part of your post is a partial/short version of why we try to use justice instead of vengeance. There are plenty of other good reasons not to resort to vengeance as well (which I'm sure you know, there is nothing wrong with excluding that for brevity sake)

      Also for the record I agree that we should always try our best to avoid vengeance and all its pitfalls, and always strive to correct the problems we have with our current forms of justice instead of giving up on the concept totally.

      But as to the first part of your post, parts are somewhat in error.

      Who decides if someone is deserving of vengeance? The perpetrator of course.
      Once a person has decided it is acceptable for them to commit an act to another that has been deemed unjust, they have at that moment decided it is acceptable for that same act to be committed against them as well.
      Eg if one decides it is acceptable to murder another, that one has decided it is acceptable to be murdered. Pretty straight forward.

      As for who decides what is comparable, it is the same answer. The detail is that the answer will not be accurate, since as you stated only the victim can possibly know that answer accurately, and also as you stated it is quite difficult for others to know the truth to that answer.

      This problem cuts both ways even if the answer is quite straight forward and simple.

      In the murder example where one takes a life, the answer is clearly to take their life.
      One problem however is when one takes multiple lives. Since the one only has one life to take, it is not possible to have an equal level of vengeance.

      In an example of theft, the answer is also straight forward although not simple, and that is to take from them the same thing, or at least take of equal value.
      Since the original thing stolen is assigned value to by the victim, that leads back to the problem of asking the victim.
      But for vengeance sake the straight forward answer is that if one decides it is acceptable to steal from another, then that one has decided it is acceptable to be stolen from as well.
      Exact value doesn't matter so much, just as long as what is taken from the perpetrator isn't of lesser value.
      Taking everything belonging to the perpetrator is an acceptable level of vengeance despite not being equal in value. After all, they have decided that theft is OK, not that they have decided theft of an exact amount is OK. Taking all of their belongings is what is OK, there is no real need to match value exactly.
      And once again the only problem that comes up is if the perpetrator literally doesn't have anything of any value in the first place, as just like the taking multiple lives bit, it would not be possible to have vengeance.

      Alas despite the simplicity of those answers, vengeance has many other problems that are far worse than worrying about any sort of tit-for-tat accuracy which the perpetrator has already decided does not matter once they crossed the "none" level threshold

    16. Re:She is not the only victim here. by green1 · · Score: 1

      Studies have shown that the thing that makes people think twice is the perception that they'll be caught, and not the severity of the punishment. From that stand point the publicity around punishing someone helps, but giving them a stiffer sentence does not. (Note I said perception that they'll be caught rather than likelihood of being caught, because the 2 are not really related)

      It also doesn't help that the human mind tends to think in terms of exceptionalism, people always think they're smarter than the person who screwed up and got caught, and that those specific circumstances would never apply to them.

      As an example, of a surprising way this can be applied though, a jurisdiction that took police resources away from major crimes (murder, rape, etc) and focused instead on minor infractions (jaywalking, graffiti, etc) saw a reduction in the major crimes. It's hypothesized that this was due to the fact that the police were far more visible dealing with that sort of thing than they ever are behind the scenes investigating the major crimes. (To catch someone jaywalking you have to have police on the street watching for it, to catch a murderer its usually lots of research behind a desk or at crime scenes out of the public eye) leading to the perception that the police were "everywhere" and that you'd be caught if you committed any crime.

    17. Re:She is not the only victim here. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Whats wrong with vengeance?

      A "justice system" is supposed to result in justice. Vengeance isn't justice, it's emotional expression.

    18. Re:She is not the only victim here. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Have bomb threat calls EVER been considered trustworthy? When I was in college in the '90s, most professors included wording in their syllabuses to the effect that exams would most definitely NOT be cancelled or postponed in the event of a bomb threat; and gave a meeetup point elsewhere on campus where we would be expected to show up and take our exams in the event that a bomb threat was called in for the building in which our exam was scheduled. That would indicate to me that, by that point in time about two decades ago, there were so many phony bomb threats going around that pretty much everyone knew they were BS; and that they'd go through the motions just in case, but they were considered to be no big deal.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    19. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said i think.

    20. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I'm not sure I've ever heard of a bomb threat being legitimate. Plenty of bomb threats with no bombs, whereas actual successful bombings have no warning.

    21. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In almost any population of organisms, there is a small % of individuals who will not or can not benefit the whole. You know as well as I do what would be the method with non-negligible effect.

    22. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The IRA used to issue warnings. Sometimes too late or too vague, but not always.

    23. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the rest of the "civilized world", or those who use that term, are so far up on their high horse that they risk breaking their necks when they fall off.
      WW2 being a pretty good example.

    24. Re:She is not the only victim here. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Interesting references.

    25. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a compelling argument. None of those other countries realized what a good idea it would be to round up everybody of a particular ethnicity and shove them into concentration camps. Well, I guess Germany did that, too.

    26. Re:She is not the only victim here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >then, pray tell, how do we Solve Crime
      ha ha oh wow

  18. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Has that single remaining neuron in your head finally thrown in the towel?

  19. Mocking NK by Sebby · · Score: 0

    This jerk has degraded the trustworthiness of ALL bomb threat calls, ALL emergency distress calls. As incidents like this increase, as people figure out better ways to hide their tracks, more people will do such things. In the end the police and emergency services will take time to check veracity and trustworthiness of the caller before responding. False alarms will increase cost for all tax payers. Some stalking victims could actually be raped or violated due to such postings.

    This guy is evil, he should be punished so severely others don't even fantasize doing such things.

    Agreed. And I also think we should prevent certain morons from mocking North Korea on Twitter, too.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re: Mocking NK by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You can just say Trump.

    2. Re: Mocking NK by Sebby · · Score: 1

      Except he's not the only one - his cronies are doing his bidding as well

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  20. Right to Privacy has Limits by Ayano · · Score: 2

    Sure you can write disparaging remarks, insult other people anonymously; but the moment you start performing malicious actions causing deliberate targeted harm, that mask can come off mighty fast.

    --
    I don't read AC
    1. Re:Right to Privacy has Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that mask can come off mighty fast.

      Hence the need for better technology, to make that mask invincible. Arguing about privacy is stupid. Protecting it at all costs is paramount. The state is too corrupt to be granted any advantage. We are on our own.

      the moment you start performing malicious actions

      Ah! Well that's different!

    2. Re:Right to Privacy has Limits by Ayano · · Score: 1

      Dig up your own wire AC. You're eventually going to be using utilities or sending data over a medium you have no control over, technology can't solve every problem, that's a common misconception and why so many start ups in tech fail as they can't realize it.

      --
      I don't read AC
    3. Re:Right to Privacy has Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dig up your own wire AC.

      Nah, all we have to do is piggyback on theirs, and to blend in better with all the other noise. Wireless mesh will have to do the same thing, and be able to ride (surf) on top of the jamming signals.

      ...a medium you have no control over

      That's the idea, to make sure nobody has control over the medium, to make it accessible to everybody, to make interference and tracking a moot issue.

  21. Virtual by petoPerceptum · · Score: 1

    Adj.
    1 almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition.

    1. Re:Virtual by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite definition of "virtual" is one I got in an advertising class talking about meaningless advertising words. Whenever you see "virtual", you can mentally replace it with "not in fact".

  22. So wait a sec by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Something doesn't sound quite right about this. From TFA:

    The logs showed how within the span of minutes the same VPN IP address had logged into Lin's real Gmail address, another Gmail address used for some of the threats, and a Rover.com account Lin created to discover Smith's real phone number.

    Gmail has forced HTTPS since 2014. What are we being asked to believe here?

    1. Re:So wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HTTPS has absolutely no relevance here.[Layer 7] The point is the correlation of the same IP[Layer 3] being used for each of these accounts with x minutes. Suggesting that the same person is using all of these services.

    2. Re:So wait a sec by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that the feds issued a search warrant to get the Gmail logs?

    3. Re:So wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless he and his roommate don't share IPs, how can they assume it is him? How do they know she did not make it look like he was stalking her?

    4. Re: So wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. How do we know this isn't all an elaborate hoax to frame her roommate because he ate her last ice cream or was late in rent.

    5. Re:So wait a sec by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      That would be a fine explanation if there were three different services used by three different URLs. But here we're talking about two different Gmail accounts. What information would the VPN service have about what specific Gmail account the customer was accessing through that IP address?

    6. Re:So wait a sec by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      That's certainly possible, but it just reinforces my point. If they had the Gmail logs, they wouldn't need anything from PureVPN but the IP address association for the customer's session (which PureVPN's privacy policy by my read doesn't explicitly exclude from logging). Activity logs showing that particular session accessed Gmail, without actual account information, might perhaps reinforce what the Gmail logs already showed, but wouldn't independently show anything.

      And if it wasn't necessary for PureVPN to have logged activity for the feds to connect these dots, Occam would strongly suggest that PureVPN indeed follows its published privacy practices and doesn't log activity, and this article suggesting otherwise was at best poorly researched/written and at worst simply FUD.

    7. Re:So wait a sec by vux984 · · Score: 1

      As I read it:

      google would provided the documentation that both accounts A and account B were accessed from a particular ip address one after another from the same computer based on browser strings etc.

      the vpn service is only confirming that suspect X was in fact connected to the vpn service at the time.

    8. Re: So wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah things are not clear here.

      It's doubtful that the VPN would be logging anything like username or login attempt, since it would be SSL.

      Most likely they had logs from the email server and just asked the VPN which user IDs this IP.

      So the VPN might not have logged anything to do with the user data, but they still log user accounts against ip

  23. VPN services are a pseudo-product, security-wise by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    VPN services are nice if you want to pretend to be in another geographically location, but the claims of security are pure marketing. Incidentally, anybody that cares to find out knows that. And no VPN service that is run commercially can say "no" when the Feds want logs to be recorded and handed to them. Lavabit is an extremely rare exception (and just did anonymous email, not VPN) and it can be seen nicely in their case what happens after such a "no". The CEO is lucky to not end up in prison.

    At this time, the only VPN service with actual security is Tor and even there, you anonymity can be compromised by attacks on the client or making mistake while using it. And, of course, a large-scale traffic analysis can break even Tor. The thing with Tor is however, that nobody that can break it will admit so for a mere cyberstalking case. It would have to be something really, really large for anybody to admit that they can compromise Tor itself.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't post your sexual fantasies. There are forums where that may be appropriate but this isn't one.

    Those were the sexual fantasies of creimer's trolls. Slashdot has always had a fetish for fat porn.

  25. VPN's are just lying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the FBI.

    PureVPN was later able to link the stalking activity with Lin's home and work IPs .

    From PureVPN website.
    we do not keep any records of anything that could associate any specific activity to a specific user.

    Assume that all VPN's have an share logs.

  26. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creimer is doing us a service by sacrificing his well-muscled leg for the trolls to hump.

  27. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we know Slashdot banned the spammer shitposting with his Amazon affiliate links. So much for your million-dollar retirement plan, huh fat boy?

  28. GOOD! by XXongo · · Score: 1
    Excellent. I'm glad they nailed him.

    This guy was a major asshole. I hope when he gets out, his terms of parole include "never allowed to touch a computer for any reason."

    1. Re:GOOD! by johanw · · Score: 1

      Now the detection metghod is ready to bust anyone who is illegally downloading the new Stsr Trek Discovery epuisodes.

  29. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who fantasizes about a gigantic sexless virgin with a personality disorder (or fifteen)?

    You do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be accusing every AC as being Chris.

  30. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we know Slashdot banned the spammer shitposting with his Amazon affiliate links. So much for your million-dollar retirement plan, huh fat boy?

    That didn't stop ACs from posting affiliate links. Even Slashdot management started putting Amazon ads on the front page. After all, creimer showed the way.

  31. This is mostly a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one am glad that the VPN chose to cooperate with the FBI. When someone is being victimized it takes all of us to pitch in and help.

  32. Re:VPN services are a pseudo-product, security-wis by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And no VPN service that is run commercially can say "no" when the Feds want logs to be recorded and handed to them.

    Sure they can. By "feds" I'm assuming you one of America's three letter agencies. The reality is that there are many countries in the world who don't play America's bullshit game.

  33. the real litmus test of privacy is by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    does your VPN (website, Tor network, etc) hosts child pornography, Islamic State glorification materials, bomb making manuals?

    If yes, then the website is private.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  34. Re: Use proxies vs. VPN bs then by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    You are openly violating the rules and terms of Slashdot. You're not welcome. Fuck off and find some other site to spam. Now fuck off.

  35. Re: Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not enough caps or bangs but the coloured links ... that's not you is it APK?
    Real APK, fake APK, real and fake cdreimer/creimer plus associated trolls snapping round their feet, it's all getting far too complicated. Are there websites which explain this stuff?

  36. Re:Let's not forget creimer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chris,

    This is strange, our psychologists have extensively surveyed Slashdot and they came to the conclusion that you were responsible for 99.9% of all affiliate links posted on Slashdot, whether you post as AC or from some of your fake accounts. You are such a miracle poster!

    For the valuable /. users that might already have read the following, please note that there is an important update.

    IMPORTANT UPDATE:
    Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education has invested money to buy Chris a new chair:
    http://www.keynamics.com/image...

    Information about Christopher Dale Reimer and autistic people:

    Autistic people have obsessions about things normal people don't care. For example, one of our autistic patient went haywire when he realized that there was a penny missing in his pocket change.

    To calm him down, one of our educator pretended to have found it on the floor and gave a penny to him.

    The autistic patient condition went even worse because he realized it wasn't the same penny!

    Chris has an obsession with budgeting every penny. He doesn't understand that most people do not budget to the penny and have a flexible amount they allow for miscellaneous items.

    I am Nancy Guerrero and I am Director of Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. We use Chris' (a.k.a. creimer,cdreimer) picture in our document because he is the hardest case we have ever had to handle:
    http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...

    Our artists were inspired by the low carb diet that Christopher follows scrupulously for the small lunch box and by the picture linked below for the rest. I am sure that you will notice the similarities such as the bump on the side of his chest and more:
    https://ibb.co/gVad65

    Please be easy on Christopher although, I am aware that some of our staff handling Chris post joke comments here and obvoiusly, the Santa Clara County Office of Education disapprove that behavior vehemently:
    https://school.discoveryeducat...

    But it isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody.

    Thank You dear users,
    -Nancy Guerrero

  37. QUAGMIRE (lol) STFU fake name fool... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject "quagmire" (fake name for your fake life = mud, lol) before I spank your do-nothing dumb ass again https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10606043&cid=54411703/ - Unbelievable!

    * You have the NERVE to even TRY "put down" my work (which 1,000's worldwide like & use) when YOUR LAME "ne'er-do-well" ass never EVER did anything of that caliber...

    APK

    P.S.=> Go back to the BOG & MUD, "quagmire" (it's where "your kind" belongs - that, or a sewer)... apk

  38. Google Chrome Artificats on "unallocated space"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read TFA for once, and the thing that stood out is that even though he wiped his drive apparently there were "Google Chrome Artifacts" of websites he had visited. What the hell is this?

    Also, now that I read TFA it also says that PureVPN did NOT keep logs of what he did online. What happened was that the some PureVPN IP address logged into his gmail and then logged into his stalking email during the same session.

  39. Re:VPN services are a pseudo-product, security-wis by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Good luck with that. Sure, in some countries they may just shoot you if you refuse to hand over the logs, but in most countries refusing a court order will get you just under threat of being locked up. This "bullshit game" is played all over the globe.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  40. Not applicable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "virtual" thing being referred to is the network (physical link/media access hardware), not the privacy. The "privacy" of the network is real. That data was obtained within the network, which is why they needed service provider participation.

    VPN isn't an advertising term. It's been around and in use forever. The fact that someone has productized it doesn't change anything.

  41. Re:VPN services are a pseudo-product, security-wis by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Sure, in some countries they may just shoot you if you refuse to hand over the logs

    No you misunderstand. Most countries don't give a flying fuck about the USA or USA problems, and especially don't give a flying fuck about the moaning of the USA corporate welfare.

    The point of VPN endpoints is to appear somewhere outside the reach of those trying to persecute you. A Chinese person will be just fine using a Ukrainian VPN with a Swedish endpoint to escape from China's watch, regardless of how much is logged. Likewise the USA can't even get basic enforcement against known criminals in other countries, let alone persecute someone using a foreign VPN service with an even more foreign endpoint.

    Not every corporation or country is beholden to the not-as-far-reaching-as-you-think eyes of the USA's TLAs. You just need to not commit a crime in the country where your VPN is hosted or end-pointed. That is pretty easy to do. Bonus points if you pick a country that actively hates the one you're trying to avoid.

  42. Re:VPN services are a pseudo-product, security-wis by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Well, good luck with that.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  43. Remember Creimer's "Underage Sweet Things" post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimer, it's obvious that it's you

    PROTIP: When you call them "russian schoolboys" it sounds like a tell that some overweight gay pedo would make as he sweated though his Acapulco shirt while talking about his overseas ministry work. It's just barely less creepy than when you talked about old engineers going to 3rd world countries to shack up with some "Underage Sweet Thing" and then defended the practice as good for bringing wealth into far off impoverished communities.

    A normal person would say "posted CP" or "posted child porn" or something like that. Even though you've told me about your russian schoolboys a dozen times I failed to recognize this as meaning child porn until you said you reported it to the FBI.

  44. The only 1 troll'd is u (Brought 2 u by carl's jr) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only person I ever see mentioning APK is you. I haven't seen any of his posts on the site in ages. Your "trolls" are yours and yours alone *(If someone yours and yours alone. why not show them how special they are to you with a gift from kay jewelers?)*. I don't like APK or 01001100010101 but you are in fact the only person I want to leave the website. Why? *(Why pay more? See what you COULD be paying with a refi quote from WELLS FARGO)*

    Well sure you're annoying but if everyone on the internet acted like you it would be a much much much less enjoyable experience. *(You're special so why wear clothes made for someone else? Tailored suits from men's warehouse will have you looking your best no matter what size and shape you're in. You're going to like the way you look I guarantee it)*

    You pretty much sealed your fate on this site when you started trying to monetize your posts. We hate any attempt to monetize anything so badly we've almost let the site go under. If you were a normal person you could just get a new nick but you have way too many tells and other things that "you think are perfectly normal"

  45. Re:VPN services are a pseudo-product, security-wis by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Cheers.