The ownership and future of Mullvad VPN(mullvad.net)
mullvad.net
The ownership and future of Mullvad VPN
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2021/9/16/ownership-and-future-mullvad-vpn/
191 comments
>no matter what you think about crypto they were probably one of if not the first companies in the world to start accepting bitcoin in 2010
I remember spending north of 25 bitcoins on a month of Mullvad back in those days. I don't remember the exact price, but I do remember mining a single 50 bitcoin block was not enough to purchase 2 months. That is at least $1.2m a month for VPN service if we use today's prices. If they actually held on to any of the bitcoin from those days, I am guessing the company and the owners have no real financial motivation to sell.
I remember spending north of 25 bitcoins on a month of Mullvad back in those days. I don't remember the exact price, but I do remember mining a single 50 bitcoin block was not enough to purchase 2 months. That is at least $1.2m a month for VPN service if we use today's prices. If they actually held on to any of the bitcoin from those days, I am guessing the company and the owners have no real financial motivation to sell.
> [...] I am guessing the company and the owners have no real financial motivation to sell.
This makes no sense. We don't know what the future of Bitcoin's market cap is going to do. That's why it is speculation.
Personally, I don't see the point of holding any cryptocurrency I own.
This makes no sense. We don't know what the future of Bitcoin's market cap is going to do. That's why it is speculation.
Personally, I don't see the point of holding any cryptocurrency I own.
You are overthinking my comment. All I was saying is that this company and the people leading it have been involved with bitcoin since the price was measured in cents. It goes back so far that it predates the bitcoin payment processors that would handle transactions and pay you out in your currency of choice. Odds are they have had some stake in bitcoin. They therefore have likely made money as the value of that bitcoin has increased.
And for the record I generally don't have a positive opinion of cryptocurrencies and am specifically down on bitcoin. I am not projecting what the market cap will be in the future. I am simply commenting on its history.
And for the record I generally don't have a positive opinion of cryptocurrencies and am specifically down on bitcoin. I am not projecting what the market cap will be in the future. I am simply commenting on its history.
I believe the person you responded to was saying “…and owners have no real financial motivation to sell [their company]” and wasn’t making a prediction on the future price of Bitcoin.
This line of reasoning is disappointingly unpopular. I think it fits a weird pattern of selection effects, where people get rich from very risky ventures (often retconned to have been savvy, precient business decisions) and it's implied that what they did was a good idea. Naturally there's no visibility for other crazy ventures that go nowhere, and it's much less fun to look at people who lost big by getting in on the top floor, chasing the success of people who were pretty smart, but very lucky.
Ultimately your expected marginal value for speculative investments where you don't have significant expertise or scale or regulatory capture or magical powers has to be negative.
Ultimately your expected marginal value for speculative investments where you don't have significant expertise or scale or regulatory capture or magical powers has to be negative.
Speculative investments like that are somewhat like the lottery, though you'd hope people would be a bit more informed to improve their odds compared to the lottery. In which case, your EV may still be negative overall, but if the potential effect size of "winning" is magnitudes larger than your downside risk, it still might make sense if you want a chance to entirely change your circumstances, vs just slowly amass savings over time.
Why would you “[…]” the first part of the sentence that explains exactly why it could have made sense?
Not really. Say I buy Bitcoins in 2012 and sell them in 2014. I paid the very market value in 2012, and received the very market value in 2014. All this 'regret' with 'hindsight 20/20' fails to take into account that one cannot know how the market value is going to be in 1 month, 1 year, or any time table. That is why its speculation.
The above comment doesn't really come down to speculation though. It really just depends how much of that BTC they turned into cash to buy infrastructure or pay people. Considering that it is logistically easier to do this with just money rather than exchanging, then it isn't unlikely that they maintained a fair amount of that BTC, and thus the "they probably have a bunch of money" conclusion.
I'm not sure why FOMO has to do with any of this. Your logic also just doesn't make sense when talking about any investment. If the market value goes up and you continue to hold then you can sell it for more than you bought it for. No one is talking about regret here except you. All investing is speculative. That's the nature of investing.
I'm not sure why FOMO has to do with any of this. Your logic also just doesn't make sense when talking about any investment. If the market value goes up and you continue to hold then you can sell it for more than you bought it for. No one is talking about regret here except you. All investing is speculative. That's the nature of investing.
> The above comment doesn't really come down to speculation though. It really just depends how much of that BTC they turned into cash to buy infrastructure or pay people. Considering that it is logistically easier to do this with just money rather than exchanging, then it isn't unlikely that they maintained a fair amount of that BTC, and thus the "they probably have a bunch of money" conclusion.
Yes, I misunderstood the point.
The US government gets rid of Bitcoins ASAP, and I know of businesses who accept Bitcoin and who also sell it ASAP.
Yes, I misunderstood the point.
The US government gets rid of Bitcoins ASAP, and I know of businesses who accept Bitcoin and who also sell it ASAP.
All investing involves some speculation, that's true. But gold and t-bills and startup equity and shitcoins all involve very different kinds of speculation.
Would we be having the same conversation if they had stock in GAFAM instead of Bitcoin?
Maybe if it was the early days of Microsoft. Even then there was a lot more data available about investing in businesses, even revolutionary computer ones. Nobody had knew for sure what was going to happen with Bitcoin, and the plausible outcomes varied hugely.
Yeah but if someone was buying a service from you in MSFT and you didn't need to cash it all out to pay expenses and salaries, would you? Or would you keep some of the stock saying "ehhh fuck it. Let's see what happens?"
Also, considering that early day cryptocurrency enthusiasts were also bullish on the technology that adjusts the chance that they'd keep some. I'm not sure why this is such a debate. The original comment just said "hey, they might have kept some of that crypto that people would pay them in. If they did, then they probably don't have to worry themselves with money." That's a speculative comment but also has a decent likelihood of being true.
Also, considering that early day cryptocurrency enthusiasts were also bullish on the technology that adjusts the chance that they'd keep some. I'm not sure why this is such a debate. The original comment just said "hey, they might have kept some of that crypto that people would pay them in. If they did, then they probably don't have to worry themselves with money." That's a speculative comment but also has a decent likelihood of being true.
ouch, and geez, and ouch.
Same boat with hosting services. 100% relatable.
Same boat with hosting services. 100% relatable.
I remember spending $20 on a plain medium cheese pizza in 2010. If only I instead bought BTC with that $20 and held it until today.
What exactly is the difference between our scenarios?
What exactly is the difference between our scenarios?
“It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.”
The commenter you are replying to, had and sold, but you never had at all.
The commenter you are replying to, had and sold, but you never had at all.
I had and sold at $1k/BTC. Thought I made out like a bandit considering what I paid for BTC/had mined it using free resources.
But my point stands: the idea that just because you had BTC at some point doesn’t really negate the fact that you had no prior knowledge. If you did, I bet you would have spent all your money and took out huge loans to buy more BTC at $2 or even $0.20. It’s a fallacy to think that just because you actually converted $ to BTC that somehow makes your lost opportunity cost more special than if you just held/spent $.
But my point stands: the idea that just because you had BTC at some point doesn’t really negate the fact that you had no prior knowledge. If you did, I bet you would have spent all your money and took out huge loans to buy more BTC at $2 or even $0.20. It’s a fallacy to think that just because you actually converted $ to BTC that somehow makes your lost opportunity cost more special than if you just held/spent $.
They have the most anonymity-friendly signup flow I've ever seen:
1. Literally click a button on the homepage
2. Here are the automatically generated credentials for your new account, which you can load up by sending any amount of cryptocurrency (perfect for emptying out an old wallet)
I don't even bother renewing, that's how easy it is to make a fresh throwaway. Which they encourage!
1. Literally click a button on the homepage
2. Here are the automatically generated credentials for your new account, which you can load up by sending any amount of cryptocurrency (perfect for emptying out an old wallet)
I don't even bother renewing, that's how easy it is to make a fresh throwaway. Which they encourage!
Mullvad is THE ONLY mainstream VPN that doesn't have seriously questionable credibility.
Not even Proton VPN is OK - sleuths have figured out that it's just a white-labeled version of NordVPN.
I am thankful that Mullvad is doubling down on their commitment to integrity, because there isn't an alternative.
Not even Proton VPN is OK - sleuths have figured out that it's just a white-labeled version of NordVPN.
I am thankful that Mullvad is doubling down on their commitment to integrity, because there isn't an alternative.
> Not even Proton VPN is OK - sleuths have figured out that it's just a white-labeled version of NordVPN.
Do you have links to this evidence/proof?
Do you have links to this evidence/proof?
I agree. I have never heard this and it seems unlikely to be true - would appreciate posting research on this.
It's a rabbithole, and you might not be personally satisfied with the standard of evidence. Here is a start for you:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571653
And since the link to [2] in what I linked above is broken, here is the archived version: https://archive.is/iZ2l2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571653
And since the link to [2] in what I linked above is broken, here is the archived version: https://archive.is/iZ2l2
See my child comment below.
There are definitely alternatives. Not sure if some people are just less exposed to the entire market and are unaware that there are choices out there. I don't use Mullvad just because of how large they are.
#3 "We do use a third party to operate our email service, so we remind you to carefully read #1 again."
#1 "If privacy is of utmost concern, we recommend that you refrain from communicating any personal data to us since plain-text email is not a safe media for communication. If necessary, use PGP-encrypted email."
So, it sounds like emails are stored on a third-party server, encrypted or not? This is sort of unavoidable for email as I understand it.
#1 "If privacy is of utmost concern, we recommend that you refrain from communicating any personal data to us since plain-text email is not a safe media for communication. If necessary, use PGP-encrypted email."
So, it sounds like emails are stored on a third-party server, encrypted or not? This is sort of unavoidable for email as I understand it.
sorry when i say they dont collect emails, i mean they don't collect your email address. they don't know your email when you use their service. your "username" is just a random string of numbers. there is no email. there is no password. i dont know anything about how they store their personal email stuff. since they don't have my email address and i've never needed to send them an email, i'm not particularly worried about it.
i should have been more clear though (and i updated my original comment to reflect this)
i should have been more clear though (and i updated my original comment to reflect this)
[deleted]
> So, it sounds like emails are stored on a third-party serve...This is sort of unavoidable for email as I understand it.
They don’t have to store the mail on a third party server.
Email is by definition stored, at least until you retrieve it, so that’s unavoidable.
They could use some public key scheme where they encrypt incoming mail and only the user could decrypt it, but it definitely would be a lot of work. A read buffer’s worth of plaintext would exist briefly in their server’s RAM. I suspect this is more work than any but a tiny number of users would want to deal with.
They don’t have to store the mail on a third party server.
Email is by definition stored, at least until you retrieve it, so that’s unavoidable.
They could use some public key scheme where they encrypt incoming mail and only the user could decrypt it, but it definitely would be a lot of work. A read buffer’s worth of plaintext would exist briefly in their server’s RAM. I suspect this is more work than any but a tiny number of users would want to deal with.
Can you expand on:
"bitpay or whatever other company that just funnels right into chain analysis companies"
Is that risk with bitpay? Curious to learn more about chain analysis I thought they would analysis all transaction..
"bitpay or whatever other company that just funnels right into chain analysis companies"
Is that risk with bitpay? Curious to learn more about chain analysis I thought they would analysis all transaction..
Service providers and exchanges are required to abide by the new travel rule imposed by the FATF. They simply can't facilitate any transactions that's on a no-name basis.
Excuse the ignorance, but what do they do when LEO knocks and asks "At 2:34am CST, we saw IP address <x.y.z.w> downloaded child porn. Who was it?"
They just say "We don't know"? Aren't there consequences for letting people download illegal content via your servers?
It seems likely that they would say "At 2:43am CST, the IP address proxying <x.y.z.w> was <your actual IP>," at which point LEO would knock on your ISP's door. Right?
I think it's totally crazy (as in actually-insane) to trust your life to these services. You're right, you can't really be sure. And if you're in a situation where you need to protect your identity, you're already caught.
They just say "We don't know"? Aren't there consequences for letting people download illegal content via your servers?
It seems likely that they would say "At 2:43am CST, the IP address proxying <x.y.z.w> was <your actual IP>," at which point LEO would knock on your ISP's door. Right?
I think it's totally crazy (as in actually-insane) to trust your life to these services. You're right, you can't really be sure. And if you're in a situation where you need to protect your identity, you're already caught.
Take a look at https://mullvad.net/en/help/swedish-legislation/
Thanks! I didn’t expect to be retracting my claims, but I retract my claims.
I wouldn’t trust my life to it, and I still think it would be crazy to. But if I ever need a VPN, I’ll go with mullvad.
I wouldn’t trust my life to it, and I still think it would be crazy to. But if I ever need a VPN, I’ll go with mullvad.
Wow, I have been looking for a service like this.
So the main thing risk would be if they are consistently logging things such as client IP, user agent etc.
I’ve been a Mullvad user for a while now and it’s a really great service. Good speeds, good apps for mobile and desktop, and the flexibility to use wireguard yourself if needed.
I stopped using privateinternetaccess when their ownership stuff became really sketchy. I’d highly recommend Mullvad to anyone else looking for a good VPN provider.
Side note, Mozilla VPN uses Mullvad’s network under the hood.
I stopped using privateinternetaccess when their ownership stuff became really sketchy. I’d highly recommend Mullvad to anyone else looking for a good VPN provider.
Side note, Mozilla VPN uses Mullvad’s network under the hood.
I googled to see if they are one of the vpn's that avertise agressively, apparently if I am not using <insert vpn> I am going to have cybercriminals litterally reach from under my desk and inappropriately touch me.
They seem to be one that doesnt have an affiliate programme, so they go to the top of my trust ranking.
They seem to be one that doesnt have an affiliate programme, so they go to the top of my trust ranking.
They're also NYT Wirecutter's top pick, in large part because of their strong stance on privacy, publicly-available 3rd-party security audit and ability to pay anonymously.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-vpn-service/
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-vpn-service/
and privacyguides.org (formerly privacytools.io) https://www.privacyguides.org/providers/vpn/
apparently if I am not using <insert vpn> I am going to have cybercriminals litterally reach from under my desk and inappropriately touch me.
Reminds me of the old "ZOMG! Your computer is broadcasting an IP address!! Send us money to save your live!!11!eleventy!1" ads.
Reminds me of the old "ZOMG! Your computer is broadcasting an IP address!! Send us money to save your live!!11!eleventy!1" ads.
Exact situation for myself. I was a PIA customer until Kape Technologies acquired PIA, prompting me to switch to Mullvad. After reading the post's title, I recoiled a little and said, "Oh no, not again," but, thankfully I was surprised by the content of the statement. I'm happy to see Mullvad is not compromising the quality of their service for a payout and continuing to demonstrate their value system that lead me to become a loyal customer.
I felt a bit like that about PIA but at this point I'm just glad they're not owned by Andrew Lee anymore.
>Mozilla VPN uses Mullvad’s network
Yeah I finally decided to leave PIA and at the time Mozilla started their offering. I figured I'd go through Mozilla to provide them some support while switching to a service I have some faith in.
Yeah I finally decided to leave PIA and at the time Mozilla started their offering. I figured I'd go through Mozilla to provide them some support while switching to a service I have some faith in.
I really like Mullvad, but I personally found the speeds to be pretty poor. It's been a while since I used it, but I remember not even being able to hit 100mbps download at times. On the other hand, in my experience, competitors can max out a gigabit connection.
What ISP do you use if you don’t mind me asking? I’m on Verizon FIOS and I’m convinced they throttle certain traffic. I pay for 940mbps and generally get around 800 wired or 5-600 on wireless, but have noticed my speeds (on VPN) drop to 2-300. I do this dance with them every couple of months, get on the phone with support and just keep saying “ok yup did that still not seeing the correct speeds” and after a while they’ll sometimes say “let us try something on our end” after which speeds recover and stay good for a while til they start (allegedly) throttling again.
EDIT: I’ve gotten around 90% of my non-VPN speed through Mullvad FWIW
EDIT: I’ve gotten around 90% of my non-VPN speed through Mullvad FWIW
Some Mullvad servers are oversaturated at times, but I've been easily maxing a gigabit connection on Dallas servers for 6 months now. You just need to specify a specific server when connecting. If it's slow, try the next- generally higher #'s are better.
I've had this before and it can be "peering", which is much more obvious when you have a couple of different connections with different ISPs to test... i.e where one ISP will be much slower on the VPN, and only when using servers with a certain ISP on the other end due to peering arrangements between the two ISPs.
Mullvad tend to have a couple of options of ISPs across the servers in one location, and the couple of times I've come across peering I've always managed to find a combo that fully utilises my connection so far.
Mullvad tend to have a couple of options of ISPs across the servers in one location, and the couple of times I've come across peering I've always managed to find a combo that fully utilises my connection so far.
That's odd, I'm in London/UK and when I use Mullvad's London servers I can usually nearly max out a Gbit connection.
Interesting... maybe I should try again. I didn't have much luck on Virgin.
Some ISPs will throttle "looks like VPN traffic" on non-business lines. On the basis that VPN use is (apparently) a business thing.
Doesn't make much sense, but there's a lot of weird behaviour in the UK ISP business.
And as for what counts as "looks like VPN", I suspect they're just looking for GRE packets.
Doesn't make much sense, but there's a lot of weird behaviour in the UK ISP business.
And as for what counts as "looks like VPN", I suspect they're just looking for GRE packets.
Could you share some of those competitors? I've tried a few VPNs which have not been especially fast, e.g. https://ovpn.com. Would like to find one that supports IPsec, which is supported natively by several operating systems.
PIA (yeah, I know they are owned by a dodgy company now, and I sound like a shill by suggesting them) does really well. No problem maxing a gigabit connection, and their peering is even better than my ISP a lot of the time - I get lower latency when playing games on US servers when using their network. I reluctantly signed back up after having speed issues w/ Mullvad.
FoxyProxy supports IPSec and OpenVPN.
[deleted]
I switched to Mullvad recently after a comment on HN in this thread [0], very happy with the switch.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165130
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165130
In that thread I learned a lot about Mullvad, thanks. Saw a few comments that made me wonder though.
I've recently switched from PIA to Mullvad for similar reasons. I do wish Mullvad had a plan with a larger device limit. With PIA, I could cover my household with a single plan. Mullvad's five device limit is insufficient. Maintaining multiple accounts is just tedious. Aside from that, I've been pretty happy with the switch.
I also switched from privateinternetaccess to Mullvad (I think about 3 years ago?). I've had a few issues with Mullvad's speed in the past, but the last couple of years has been smooth service. My only complaint - and please note I havent check recently if this is still the case - is there's no discount for yearly subscriptions. I usually buy 12 months at a time and I wish they'd shave a few bucks off that, but honestly it's a very affordable service to begin with.
> Mullvad VPN is here to stay, and we are not interested in ever selling it
Yeah we don't want another Kape Technologies acquisition[0]. Kape already own Cyberghost, PrivateInternetAccess and Zenmate. If they bought Mullvad, I would immediately stop using Mullvad since Kape is Israeli and could possibly be tapped by Mossad (I keep an open mind about that however).
[0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/kape-technol...
Yeah we don't want another Kape Technologies acquisition[0]. Kape already own Cyberghost, PrivateInternetAccess and Zenmate. If they bought Mullvad, I would immediately stop using Mullvad since Kape is Israeli and could possibly be tapped by Mossad (I keep an open mind about that however).
[0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/kape-technol...
Kape also just bought Expressvpn.
https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/expressvpn-joining-kape/
It was a bummer to see the news.
https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/expressvpn-joining-kape/
It was a bummer to see the news.
Ah wow, and ExpressVPN was also recently in the news because their CIO was one of three former U.S. intelligence operatives who "illegally helped the United Arab Emirates hack people".
https://twitter.com/josephmenn/status/1437885720169836544
https://twitter.com/josephmenn/status/1437885720169836544
Wow, I had no idea. I was a longtime PIA user, guess its time to switch again. My only issue with Mullvad is netflix blocks them (potential irony there).
Some servers used to work for me last time I tried. (It has been a while though)
HBO as well
Mullvad is located in Sweden(14 eyes, xkeyscore).
SÄPO is not the Mossad
I do not think it is SÄPO you need to worry about, it is FRA who does most spying.
SÄPO would comply with fourteen eyes directives, no? Is that not what 14 eyes membership implies?
No, that isn't what membership implies. It is a cooperation and data sharing agreement, it doesn't unify countries intelligence agencies across borders.
For example GE makes engines for Boeing airplanes. They may have a cooperative agreement and mutual non-disclosure agreements that allow engineers and designers to share engine attachment and airframe details freely, but that doesn't mean GE employees have access to information on the radio headsets.
For example GE makes engines for Boeing airplanes. They may have a cooperative agreement and mutual non-disclosure agreements that allow engineers and designers to share engine attachment and airframe details freely, but that doesn't mean GE employees have access to information on the radio headsets.
I believe the whole reason for this post is because Kape just bought ExpressVPN.
You should assume your VPN provider is tapped regardless of who owns it or what jurisdiction it is in.
The fiber runs right out of the building.
You use a VPN to obscure your client IP from websites and app backends, not government mass surveillance.
The fiber runs right out of the building.
You use a VPN to obscure your client IP from websites and app backends, not government mass surveillance.
I don't know why you'd give an Israeli tech firm the benefit of the doubt. The country's tech industry is literally surveillance. Kape is not just "possibly" a surveillance operation, it 100% definitely is.
> don't want another Kape Technologies acquisition
Purely for schadenfreude, do we have any evidence the volume of leavers was meaningful?
Purely for schadenfreude, do we have any evidence the volume of leavers was meaningful?
They definitely don't post about it.
I closed my account with PIA right after the sellout was announced. I received several emails with form letters about Kape actually being really dedicated to privacy and you can totally trust them buying PIA. Made me think that they took a noticeable hit.
I closed my account with PIA right after the sellout was announced. I received several emails with form letters about Kape actually being really dedicated to privacy and you can totally trust them buying PIA. Made me think that they took a noticeable hit.
They began offering much more generous deals on PIA after the aquisition, so I'm guessing enough people left for it to affect their bottom line.
"Mullvad's vision is to make censorship and mass surveillance impractical."
I'm pretty convinced that the only way to do this is through enforceable legal restrictions, not through technology. This is because those with deep pockets (nation-states and multinational corporations) will always have the technological edge over any average user.
In addition, any operating business has to operate under the laws of the host country, see what happened with Lavabits and its refusal to hand over email encryption keys in 2013:
"The court ordered Levison to be fined $5,000 a day beginning 6 August until he handed over electronic copies of the keys. Two days later Levison handed over the keys hours after he shuttered Lavabit."
The only way to stop nation-states and multinationals from spying on everyone and everything is to make it illegal for them to do so, and to enforce those laws with meaningful punishments.
I'm pretty convinced that the only way to do this is through enforceable legal restrictions, not through technology. This is because those with deep pockets (nation-states and multinational corporations) will always have the technological edge over any average user.
In addition, any operating business has to operate under the laws of the host country, see what happened with Lavabits and its refusal to hand over email encryption keys in 2013:
"The court ordered Levison to be fined $5,000 a day beginning 6 August until he handed over electronic copies of the keys. Two days later Levison handed over the keys hours after he shuttered Lavabit."
The only way to stop nation-states and multinationals from spying on everyone and everything is to make it illegal for them to do so, and to enforce those laws with meaningful punishments.
This sounds naive.
Part of a problem is that people with legislation-changing privileges are on the other side of the conflict.
If privacy-seeking people don't have a practical leverage for a negotiation, they can't sustain the legislation and enforcement tilted in their favour.
For example, the USSR was meant to be a very liberal and democratic state. At the very beginning, soldiers elected their officers! How long ago have you voted for your favorite manager to manage you at work? But given the "network effects" of the armed and aggressive party organization, the power was quickly centralized and pretty soon lowly individuals' needs and lives were worth nothing.
Part of a problem is that people with legislation-changing privileges are on the other side of the conflict.
If privacy-seeking people don't have a practical leverage for a negotiation, they can't sustain the legislation and enforcement tilted in their favour.
For example, the USSR was meant to be a very liberal and democratic state. At the very beginning, soldiers elected their officers! How long ago have you voted for your favorite manager to manage you at work? But given the "network effects" of the armed and aggressive party organization, the power was quickly centralized and pretty soon lowly individuals' needs and lives were worth nothing.
The USSR was never meant to be a very liberal and democratic state.
For one example, Soviets forcibly disbanded the (democratically elected) Constituent Assembly after 13 hours of operation, because they didn't get the majority in it, and couldn't influence its decision - and this happened several years before the USSR was even formed.
For another example, the very first Soviet constitution (of 1918; again, before USSR was even a thing!) allocated voting power as follows:
"The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants)."
That is, one urban vote counted for 5 rural votes. Most rural votes (and thus votes in general, back then) were those of peasants, who tended to vote for parties such as SR. Urban votes, on the other hand, were mostly factory workers, who tended to support Bolsheviks.
Furthermore, the same constitution outright banned several groups of people from voting:
"(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits; (b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.; (c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers; (d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;"
As for liberal, one of the first Bolshevik decrees was the "decree on the press", which specifically stated that "bourgeois press" is not subject to freedom of speech. Or we could talk about how the Constitutional Democrat party was banned outright a few weeks later, and its members subject to arrest.
For one example, Soviets forcibly disbanded the (democratically elected) Constituent Assembly after 13 hours of operation, because they didn't get the majority in it, and couldn't influence its decision - and this happened several years before the USSR was even formed.
For another example, the very first Soviet constitution (of 1918; again, before USSR was even a thing!) allocated voting power as follows:
"The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants)."
That is, one urban vote counted for 5 rural votes. Most rural votes (and thus votes in general, back then) were those of peasants, who tended to vote for parties such as SR. Urban votes, on the other hand, were mostly factory workers, who tended to support Bolsheviks.
Furthermore, the same constitution outright banned several groups of people from voting:
"(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits; (b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.; (c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers; (d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;"
As for liberal, one of the first Bolshevik decrees was the "decree on the press", which specifically stated that "bourgeois press" is not subject to freedom of speech. Or we could talk about how the Constitutional Democrat party was banned outright a few weeks later, and its members subject to arrest.
Many countries around the world have functioning liberal democracies; it's arguably the most overwhelming political success in history - when has a form of government swept the world with such success?
Many countries protect privacy; the EU is off to a good start on that. Yours can too if you make it happen.
Many countries protect privacy; the EU is off to a good start on that. Yours can too if you make it happen.
Well, there was no Bill of Rights in the Soviet Union... or China... or Saudi Arabia. And that Bill of Rights provides a legal basis for opposition to an American government that clearly envies Chinese and Saudi state control systems.
Now my point is simply that technology has not allowed repressed people in Saudi Arabia or China to defeat or evade state surveillance technology, has it? Now, I have no doubt the US government would love to have that kind of power - and the only thing stopping it from reaching out and taking that power is the legal system.
Of course, blatant violation of the legal system by the state is possible. So is violent armed resistance and civil war. But, I think a government that tried to toss the Bill of Rights would be a government with no legitimacy. See Declaration of Independence.
Now my point is simply that technology has not allowed repressed people in Saudi Arabia or China to defeat or evade state surveillance technology, has it? Now, I have no doubt the US government would love to have that kind of power - and the only thing stopping it from reaching out and taking that power is the legal system.
Of course, blatant violation of the legal system by the state is possible. So is violent armed resistance and civil war. But, I think a government that tried to toss the Bill of Rights would be a government with no legitimacy. See Declaration of Independence.
The way to stop nation-state-level spying is, if I understand correctly, to make it illegal? I'm not sure I follow.
Well, prior to the legal system, the only way to resolve conflicts between humans was, well, violence. So, if the legal system loses legitimacy, we are back to violence as a dispute resolution system. Probably not a good idea, unless there's an authoritarian imperial Nazi setup that need to be sent down to Hell.
FYI: Since they're a Swedish AB/aktiebolag their financial numbers are publicly available:
https://www.allabolag.se/5567839807/amagicom-ab
Surprisingly humble numbers. 2020 revenue was ~$2M.
https://www.allabolag.se/5567839807/amagicom-ab
Surprisingly humble numbers. 2020 revenue was ~$2M.
According to their annual report (which you can download for free from hitta.se) they transferred Mullvad to the subsidiary Mullvad VPN AB in 2020, which had a revenue of $4M: https://www.allabolag.se/5592384001/mullvad-vpn-ab
Good catch. 2021 revenue will probably be quite a bit more, then.
Well, i'd assume that only a smaller part of the computer using part of humanity knows what a VPN is. Since they are offering a service out of ideolical reasons, with competitors that advertise agressively, a low revenue/profit is totally fine with me. Enough to keep the lights on and build reserves. Citizens of rich countries can be contended with what they have, which is a lot if you look at the other 90% of humanity. Even if, you are "poor" by your counties standard can still feel rich, content and happy.
Oof, that's a scary way to title such a harmless/reassuring article!
What's scary about it? It's quite mundane/matter of fact
That's objectively true, but it's the sort of style we so often see for 'we have sold the company to blah' or 'we are ceasing operations' etc. posts; so it's, to me anyway, 'scary' by association.
When you are an appreciative customer, this title just feels ominous.
Usually such titles are used when the company has been sold
Clickbait works both ways.
I've been a long-time user of Mullvad, and can only say good things.
No usernames, cash payments, published audits by reputable companies, handy FAQ/guide section, sleek application, split-tunelling, etc.
In the mess that is VPN products, it's refreshing to see Mullvad stick to its original goals.
No usernames, cash payments, published audits by reputable companies, handy FAQ/guide section, sleek application, split-tunelling, etc.
In the mess that is VPN products, it's refreshing to see Mullvad stick to its original goals.
Hey, I know this is the original title but please rename it to be more descriptive. I saw the title , assumed the worst and then was reassured on reading the article.
what would be a better title?
"Mullvad VPN isn't going anywhere"
"We will not sell MullvadVPN"
"We will not sell MullvadVPN"
Sounds quite clickbaity. I actually like titles the describe the subject rather than the conclusion.
How would giving the punchline cause more bite than an undefined outcome?
If that was the case you wouldn’t see titles like “you won’t believe what happens when you X” and instead you would see “nothing out of the ordinary happened when we X, save yourself 10 min”.
This title is clickbait in the sense that you see it and you have to wonder “oh crap are they selling out? Let’s click and find out”. If they said “Mullvad is not selling and we tell you why” there is no bait.
If that was the case you wouldn’t see titles like “you won’t believe what happens when you X” and instead you would see “nothing out of the ordinary happened when we X, save yourself 10 min”.
This title is clickbait in the sense that you see it and you have to wonder “oh crap are they selling out? Let’s click and find out”. If they said “Mullvad is not selling and we tell you why” there is no bait.
Because the conclusion is usually more nuanced and putting it in the title makes you start to form an opinion before reading the article.
Mullvad has been at the top of my mentally-disorganized pile of VPN trust for years. However, being the best and growing in popularity will eventually be a liability, if it isn't already: the more mindshare, popularity, and traffic, the more appealing they become as a target.
I've been using Mullvad with Wireguard for some time now, it's been pretty rock solid apart from occasions where one host will get saturated but a quick switch to another in the region and it's never been a big issue (you get that will all providers I suppose).
imo still better than any other providers. the only thing bugging me is they should accept payment in xmr(which is untraceable). there is an alternative (ivpn.net) which is a little more expensive and accept in xmr but i've never tested out.
I'm really glad that Mullvad is taking this stance after the recent sale of ExpressVPN.
I wonder (hope for them) that they kept the bitcoin they've been getting by some people, including me, when bitcoin was around 1-2 euro each. If so, they must have 'fuck you money' now anyways.
I wonder (hope for them) that they kept the bitcoin they've been getting by some people, including me, when bitcoin was around 1-2 euro each. If so, they must have 'fuck you money' now anyways.
That title made me expect an "incredible journey" post. I'm very glad that it wasn't.
I haven't seen anyone question why they would write such a blog post in the first place.
This might suggest that they have a potential buyer who is aggressively trying to convince them to sell.
This could be Mozilla, considering their recent partnership. But more likely either a competitor that doesn't want to see them grow too much, or someone who really wants to get their hands on the data. Like a three letter agency shell company or hacker group.
This might suggest that they have a potential buyer who is aggressively trying to convince them to sell.
This could be Mozilla, considering their recent partnership. But more likely either a competitor that doesn't want to see them grow too much, or someone who really wants to get their hands on the data. Like a three letter agency shell company or hacker group.
To me it seems to be an answer to
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28552731
https://alternativeto.net/news/2021/9/kape-technologies-buys...
https://alternativeto.net/news/2021/9/kape-technologies-buys...
An attempt to capture customers leaving ExpressVPN makes sense.
This was my question: why write this in the first place, since this is basically an announcement of no change. Makes sense that someone is trying to acquire them, especially given how crazy the VPN space has gotten and considering the mozilla deal
> [..] is consistent, long-term, and value-based ownership [..] this disqualifies taking outside investment, either through venture capital or going public.
They should switch to a cooperative co-owned by workers and customers then. It the easiest legal-entity way of ensuring that continuity. (Coops cannot "take outside investment" nor "go public"; Mullvad would be owned by stakeholders rather than shareholders)
They should switch to a cooperative co-owned by workers and customers then. It the easiest legal-entity way of ensuring that continuity. (Coops cannot "take outside investment" nor "go public"; Mullvad would be owned by stakeholders rather than shareholders)
I wonder if they have the Benefit Corporation designation in Sweden?
Yes, in Sweden you have a number of legal constructs to use.
You can organize a company as a cooperation. It is not a specific legal form of business, but a version of a normal limited company. It is used for non-profit businesses, for example a day care.
You can also form a business association - which is fairly common for non-profit organizations. Typically house owners that share a road, have a small pier for their boats etc.
Finally you can create a foundation. The foundation has no owners or members, but has a board. It is typically used to manage wealth, often for charity purposes (which I think matches the term used in the U.S.). The most famous foundation in Sweden is probably IKEA[0].
(INAL etc. And [0] yes, I know that the IKEA HQ is in Switzerland, with foundation operations in Holland IRRC. But it was founded in Sweden - and we get mixed up with Switzerland all the time anyway so... ;-)
You can organize a company as a cooperation. It is not a specific legal form of business, but a version of a normal limited company. It is used for non-profit businesses, for example a day care.
You can also form a business association - which is fairly common for non-profit organizations. Typically house owners that share a road, have a small pier for their boats etc.
Finally you can create a foundation. The foundation has no owners or members, but has a board. It is typically used to manage wealth, often for charity purposes (which I think matches the term used in the U.S.). The most famous foundation in Sweden is probably IKEA[0].
(INAL etc. And [0] yes, I know that the IKEA HQ is in Switzerland, with foundation operations in Holland IRRC. But it was founded in Sweden - and we get mixed up with Switzerland all the time anyway so... ;-)
Since it comes up often on here, these are the reasons why I use a VPN provider:
1. my threat model is not my government. It seems that the TLAs have thoroughly pwned our privacy for a long time now. (please note that I am in no way advocating for this mass surveillance, but I don't see that I have much choice in the matter)
2. My threat model includes my ISP. I am forced to use a scummy ISP who would openly steal my data if I let them. Same with my mobile provider.
3. My threat model includes the data thieves who have obvious business models built around selling my stolen data to the highest bidder.
4. My threat model includes black hats and script kiddies.
5. Do I trust my VPN provider? Eh. A little. For now. The thing is, I trust them more than #s 2,3,4 above. What other choice do I have?
1. my threat model is not my government. It seems that the TLAs have thoroughly pwned our privacy for a long time now. (please note that I am in no way advocating for this mass surveillance, but I don't see that I have much choice in the matter)
2. My threat model includes my ISP. I am forced to use a scummy ISP who would openly steal my data if I let them. Same with my mobile provider.
3. My threat model includes the data thieves who have obvious business models built around selling my stolen data to the highest bidder.
4. My threat model includes black hats and script kiddies.
5. Do I trust my VPN provider? Eh. A little. For now. The thing is, I trust them more than #s 2,3,4 above. What other choice do I have?
How does a VPN help with #3 and #4? Once your data is with a service provider, it doesn't really matter how it got there.
2. is mine, and I really should get a VPN. I'm not interesting in the least, but I have no doubt xfinity is profiling user data and selling to advertisers.
I love Mullvad, I've been a happy user of theirs for many years!
While I applaud Mullvad intention and business model, I wonder how long they will be able to operate this way.
Their company is Swedish and therefore must respect Swedish and EU laws. It would be very easy to end up in a ProtonMail/VPN situation. I don't know if Sweden has laws that allow police/judge to order to log one's customer data, but I would be surprised if they don't or at least will have in the future, by their own legislation or EU's.
Their company is Swedish and therefore must respect Swedish and EU laws. It would be very easy to end up in a ProtonMail/VPN situation. I don't know if Sweden has laws that allow police/judge to order to log one's customer data, but I would be surprised if they don't or at least will have in the future, by their own legislation or EU's.
I use commercial VPN only watching films from other countries. One thing about ExpressVPN is they were good it moving exit points to stay ahead of most of the streaming companies. Does this application matter to mullvad? It's a lot of work to stay ahead of.
(I have a separate VPN for when I'm in a public place and it terminates at a machine I own. For movies, I don't care if my traffic is spied on)
(I have a separate VPN for when I'm in a public place and it terminates at a machine I own. For movies, I don't care if my traffic is spied on)
The problem is, there is no way to verify such statements.
All of the statements or specific ones? That the owners are the one stated can be verified. The business register (a Swedish agency) is here: https://bolagsverket.se/
The registration, books etc for limited companies (aktiebolag AB) are public information. As someone else pointed out, there are also third party information sources like allabolag:
https://www.allabolag.se/5592384001/mullvad-vpn-ab
The registration, books etc for limited companies (aktiebolag AB) are public information. As someone else pointed out, there are also third party information sources like allabolag:
https://www.allabolag.se/5592384001/mullvad-vpn-ab
I was shown Mullvad by a YouTuber I respect (Mental Outlaw) and I can't think of a better VPN service. Not only that, but they might just have the most respectable payment model. No accounts. Crypto allowed. Or just plain mailed cash. These guys are excellent.
I love mullvad too. I don't use it for two reasons:
1- I can't watch Netflix when I'm connected.
2- Does not work reliably in China.
Express VPN does work for me, although it is probably not very secure. If they fix those issues, I will switch without a doubt.
Same - I would switch immediately if it worked well in China. Express VPN used to work, but after weeks of outages I switched to Astrill.
Honestly, in the moment in which using VPN is outlawed for "whatever <insert societal manufactured consent> reason" I am shutting the Internet down and moving into the woods.
Mullvad VPN is the first thing that I setup on every Internet connected device that I own.
Mullvad VPN is the first thing that I setup on every Internet connected device that I own.
On a side note - I think lots of popular, easy to use VPN services with good reviews are actually owned or fully controlled by 3-letter agencies or by group of "eyes".
IMHO better pick lesser-known, obscure service for higher safety. If you care of course.
IMHO better pick lesser-known, obscure service for higher safety. If you care of course.
I assume this is a response to Kape Technologies buying ExpressVPN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28552731
A striking difference from the former intelligence official led competitor.
mullvad is absolutely excellent. they’ve definitely stuck to their guns, too
Down?
Privateinternetaccess was the first VPN service I ever purchased, out of necessity when the internet piracy scene first began showing signs of the predatory mess it is today. They happened to sponsor/fund some things in my sphere of interest and were relatively reputable between my circle of acquaintances. But I am sure if you've been paying attention, you know how that ended.
Since then I have been a customer of Mullvad's and honestly, no affiliation, they're on another level entirely. Being able to pay in cash and have an account with zero information attached to it brings a peace of mind, even though it's totally unnecessary, at least in my humble use case. Being able to use wireguard directly with no weird app in between fits my needs perfectly as well, goodbye borderline-unsupported custom OpenVPN configurations. This is how an online "service" business should be run imo. My only fear is that they'll meet the same end as PIA at some point, or get themselves into trouble with data-hungry law enforcement.
Since then I have been a customer of Mullvad's and honestly, no affiliation, they're on another level entirely. Being able to pay in cash and have an account with zero information attached to it brings a peace of mind, even though it's totally unnecessary, at least in my humble use case. Being able to use wireguard directly with no weird app in between fits my needs perfectly as well, goodbye borderline-unsupported custom OpenVPN configurations. This is how an online "service" business should be run imo. My only fear is that they'll meet the same end as PIA at some point, or get themselves into trouble with data-hungry law enforcement.
I haven't been paying attention. How did that end?
EDIT: Oh, Kape purchased them. I assume that's it.
EDIT: Oh, Kape purchased them. I assume that's it.
"we are not interested in ever selling it."
I know very little about Mullvad specifically, but my general presumption when an organization says this, it means the opposite.
Everyone has a price.
I know very little about Mullvad specifically, but my general presumption when an organization says this, it means the opposite.
Everyone has a price.
> Everyone has a price.
No. You really can't buy some people.
Either because they already have more money than they know how to use, or because they have, you know, principles.
No. You really can't buy some people.
Either because they already have more money than they know how to use, or because they have, you know, principles.
Money can be used to better realize your principles. It's sort of like the trolley problem. What if you were being offered so much money that you felt you could achieve a greater net good with it than without?
> What if you were being offered so much money that you felt you could achieve a greater net good with it than without?
"The ends don't justify the means" is also a principle. And it's a good one. 'Many a great evil has been done in the name of good' etc.
If someone won't kill their grandma for one billion dollars, they probably won't do it for 10 billion either.
"The ends don't justify the means" is also a principle. And it's a good one. 'Many a great evil has been done in the name of good' etc.
If someone won't kill their grandma for one billion dollars, they probably won't do it for 10 billion either.
I think you're arguing something entirely differently.
> And it's a good one.
You're acting as if myself or the parent comment think everyone in business is evil. AFAIK you have no intimate knowledge about the founders and their motivations or what they believe to be "good", seemingly that they have some benevolent worldy principled intentions. At no point am I arguing that people don't have principles, just that those principles may manifest themselves in different ways (as the parent pointed out, the owners might sell and start a non profit privacy based solution, just like, ya know, Brian Acton did)
> And it's a good one.
You're acting as if myself or the parent comment think everyone in business is evil. AFAIK you have no intimate knowledge about the founders and their motivations or what they believe to be "good", seemingly that they have some benevolent worldy principled intentions. At no point am I arguing that people don't have principles, just that those principles may manifest themselves in different ways (as the parent pointed out, the owners might sell and start a non profit privacy based solution, just like, ya know, Brian Acton did)
I was responding to what I quoted in my initial comment. And I meant what I said, nothing more, nothing less.
Please don't ascribe things to me that I did not say. Thanks a bunch.
We're here to evaluate whether the statement "Everyone has a price." (emphasis yours) is true or not and I have no interest in anything beyond that.
After all that's the part of your post I quoted.
Please don't ascribe things to me that I did not say. Thanks a bunch.
We're here to evaluate whether the statement "Everyone has a price." (emphasis yours) is true or not and I have no interest in anything beyond that.
After all that's the part of your post I quoted.
You can negative-buy someone. Meaning: you can pay other "actors" to make their life so miserable that they will consider selling (or conceding whatever you would be asking of them).
In that sense, everyone has a price. It just doesn't necessarily go directly in their pockets.
In that sense, everyone has a price. It just doesn't necessarily go directly in their pockets.
Even so I know for a fact this won't work on everyone. Whatever you may do to them or offer them.
As long as there is people willing to literally die for a cause, this won't change.
As long as there is people willing to literally die for a cause, this won't change.
This doesn't seem like the best heuristic. Your automatic interpretation of "we are not interested in selling" is "we are interested in selling"?
I'm being slightly facetious.
I don't know why Mullvad issued a notice to talk about ownership, but I presume it was because they've gotten alot of M&A interest or it's a marketing move to garner trust from their client-base (i.e. others are getting distrust for selling).
I know more examples of companies who publicly say they're not interested in selling that do than those that don't. In other words, why be public about it?[0] Clearly there is M&A interest for a company like this.
Do you know any for-profit orgs that say publicly they aren't selling and actually don't? Most I know simply aren't public about it.
[0] - Btw - one M&A trick to drive up a valuation is to say you're not for sale. So yes this heuristic is absolutely valid in that sense.
I don't know why Mullvad issued a notice to talk about ownership, but I presume it was because they've gotten alot of M&A interest or it's a marketing move to garner trust from their client-base (i.e. others are getting distrust for selling).
I know more examples of companies who publicly say they're not interested in selling that do than those that don't. In other words, why be public about it?[0] Clearly there is M&A interest for a company like this.
Do you know any for-profit orgs that say publicly they aren't selling and actually don't? Most I know simply aren't public about it.
[0] - Btw - one M&A trick to drive up a valuation is to say you're not for sale. So yes this heuristic is absolutely valid in that sense.
Upvoted because you have good points, but I thought I'd address one thing.
> I don't know why Mullvad issued a notice to talk about ownership
The reason is probably because ExpressVPN was just bought by Kape. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28552731
> I don't know why Mullvad issued a notice to talk about ownership
The reason is probably because ExpressVPN was just bought by Kape. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28552731
Got it. Makes sense.
> Upvoted because you have good points
I have a feeling people are downvoting me because they think people are bad/evil for wanting money. Weird.
> Upvoted because you have good points
I have a feeling people are downvoting me because they think people are bad/evil for wanting money. Weird.
I didn't up nor downvote you because even though I think it's sad, I still see the interesting part in your comment:
You represent a branch of people this system grew which would rather make up some story than to believe that people actually won't sell something because it's important to them.
You represent a branch of people this system grew which would rather make up some story than to believe that people actually won't sell something because it's important to them.
That's fair. To expand further, businesses are run people who have families, ambitions, etc. Starting and running companies puts a lot of stress on those factors. When someone offers you life changing to sell, your ideals around "protecting the greater good of the people" can quickly dilute.
Can you imagine that this greed-talk looks alien to some people out there? Look, their numbers look quite good already. I'm sure you can have a decent life in Sweden with all that money. So why should they feel the urge to sell? Where do you see this invisible magic force which has to turn everybody into greedy zombies without principles?
And yes, think about their families. My SO would throw me out if I's sell what I believe in and I'd deserve it. What an example to the kids would that make? I'd be despicable to them.
And yes, think about their families. My SO would throw me out if I's sell what I believe in and I'd deserve it. What an example to the kids would that make? I'd be despicable to them.
> I have a feeling people are downvoting me because they think people are bad/evil for wanting money. Weird.
Yeah, I agree it's weird.
Personally, I'd love to have enough money to not have to work the rest of my life, or worry about anything. Nothing evil with that.
Yeah, I agree it's weird.
Personally, I'd love to have enough money to not have to work the rest of my life, or worry about anything. Nothing evil with that.
Probably because ExpressVPN announced their sale to Make the other day. They took advantage of the situation to day "hi, you can trust us because we're more principled than that," to both their existing customers and ExpressVPN users who want to jump ship.
In economic theory, yes, everyone has a price.
We keep no activity logs. Your IP address is replaced by one of ours, ensuring that your device's activity and location are not linked to you.
Where have we seen this before... ;)
Surely if requested by their government they will keep logs for any specific customer, just like it happen with protonmail.
Where have we seen this before... ;)
Surely if requested by their government they will keep logs for any specific customer, just like it happen with protonmail.
I don't get the business model of a VPN. You're willingly becoming a magnet for scum, crime, piracy and malware, with maybe 1% of legitimate users.
Surely the support costs of dealing with all the constant abuse reports would outweigh the fee they are charging, not to mention the costs of running the infrastructure (if they're used for piracy they'd need quite a bit of bandwidth)?
Even if you are legally in the clear, it doesn't strike me as a business someone wants to get involved in unless there are alternative objectives they don't disclose.
Surely the support costs of dealing with all the constant abuse reports would outweigh the fee they are charging, not to mention the costs of running the infrastructure (if they're used for piracy they'd need quite a bit of bandwidth)?
Even if you are legally in the clear, it doesn't strike me as a business someone wants to get involved in unless there are alternative objectives they don't disclose.
>with maybe 1% of legitimate users
I'm interested to know where you sourced that number? There are plenty of legitimate use cases for a VPN.
While I agree there is definitely users with subpar intentions, I highly doubt 99% of people subscribing to a VPN are doing it because they are 'scum'.
I'm interested to know where you sourced that number? There are plenty of legitimate use cases for a VPN.
While I agree there is definitely users with subpar intentions, I highly doubt 99% of people subscribing to a VPN are doing it because they are 'scum'.
I mean his comment is the illustrative argument for why VPNs exist. Basically in a world where a Westerner (a historically relatively more liberal bunch) categorizes 99% of everything they don’t agree with as scum, copyright infringement, or worse - that’s all the motivation you need for safe, reliable communication infrastructure.
> Surely the support costs of dealing with all the constant abuse reports would outweigh the fee they are charging
Employing /dev/null to handle abuse reports is usually pretty cheap.
Employing /dev/null to handle abuse reports is usually pretty cheap.
Is piracy not a legitimate usage?
Piracy is something that some powerful entities would prefer you didn't do. Some people may consider it legitimate, some don't, but from a business point of view the problem is that you still have some big guys with big budgets against you.
No, it's not. You have no inherent right to others' work. You can pay the owners' requested price or you can go without. Piracy is neither legally nor morally defensible.
Piracy does not even inherently inhibit the creators from getting their monetary compensation.
Nowadays, I pirate games I paid for, so I don't have to run invasive and performance-degrading DRM software that makes assumptions about current computers that might not hold in the future.
It's about convenience and archival, and the creator's compensation.
Philosophically, it's also about protesting about the nature of private property and how in many cases nowadays, a "purchase" is in fact more akin to a lease.
Nowadays, I pirate games I paid for, so I don't have to run invasive and performance-degrading DRM software that makes assumptions about current computers that might not hold in the future.
It's about convenience and archival, and the creator's compensation.
Philosophically, it's also about protesting about the nature of private property and how in many cases nowadays, a "purchase" is in fact more akin to a lease.
You can definitely make a moral argument in favor of piracy as a form of civil disobedience. Aaron Schwartz [1] and the book Free Culture[2] are the two bigger examples that come to mind.
[1] https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/committees/ip/ipreports/swartzcas...
[2] https://lessig.org/product/free-culture/
[1] https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/committees/ip/ipreports/swartzcas...
[2] https://lessig.org/product/free-culture/
Civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of your actions to affect public perception and motivate change. Using a VPN is the opposite of that.
Lessig's point isn't what you're making it out to be. Lessening the length of copyright isn't endorsement of wholesale piracy.
Artists need food, shelter, and comfort just like everyone else. Those things cost money. Even an artist who feels a need to create needs enough funding to survive and get materials. Great works of art require funding. This is particularly true for things like movies and video games - you can have some smaller indie passion projects, but the kind of funding for AAA games or blockbuster movies doesn't just appear out of thin air - it requires a return on investment. If piracy was widespread and universally acceptable, this content would not exist.
Again, AAA games aren't a couple of passionate friends. George on the engine team doesn't want to spend 2 days hunting down an obscure collision detection bug if they're not getting paid.
Artists need food, shelter, and comfort just like everyone else. Those things cost money. Even an artist who feels a need to create needs enough funding to survive and get materials. Great works of art require funding. This is particularly true for things like movies and video games - you can have some smaller indie passion projects, but the kind of funding for AAA games or blockbuster movies doesn't just appear out of thin air - it requires a return on investment. If piracy was widespread and universally acceptable, this content would not exist.
Again, AAA games aren't a couple of passionate friends. George on the engine team doesn't want to spend 2 days hunting down an obscure collision detection bug if they're not getting paid.
> nor morally defensible.
I don't think this is accurate. There are plenty of legitimate critiques against intellectual property, for example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/#Ge...
I don't think this is accurate. There are plenty of legitimate critiques against intellectual property, for example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/#Ge...
Note that OP said "legitimate", not "legal". These are not the same.
You have an inherent (natural) right to freedom of speech, which includes propagation of information. Intellectual property rights are an artificial construct that is created by society, effectively limiting freedom of speech and granting limited monopolies on distribution of certain information, ostensibly to achieve certain social goals. Both the goals themselves, and to what extent the arrangement is conductive to achieving them, is very much debatable.
You have an inherent (natural) right to freedom of speech, which includes propagation of information. Intellectual property rights are an artificial construct that is created by society, effectively limiting freedom of speech and granting limited monopolies on distribution of certain information, ostensibly to achieve certain social goals. Both the goals themselves, and to what extent the arrangement is conductive to achieving them, is very much debatable.
In my country, we pay a tax on all storage media which goes to content creators. We get to copy any content we legally own at the time of copying, even if borrowed from a friend or library.
So yes, I have an inherent legal and moral right to others' work as I pay for it.
So yes, I have an inherent legal and moral right to others' work as I pay for it.
its like that in germany. well not really but it was supposed to be like this but later on it got illegal to circumvent digital protection regardless how trivial it was. the fees are still in place though...
VPNs, at least in Switzerland, are regulated differently and aren't forced to give up their customers.
Mullvad is from Sweden. Not only spelled differently but has different laws and legal system too.
I tried them a few years ago on my iPhone and had issues with connectivity when using it as “always on” VPN. Often lost internet access (i think mostly when ‘switching’ between 3G and Wifi.)
So i left them, for ProtonVpn, which has been working great.
Does anyone use Mullvad on their mobile, has stability of the connection improved? (speed is not my first priority.)
EDIT: why downvotes (without leaving a comment…) ?
Does anyone use Mullvad on their mobile, has stability of the connection improved? (speed is not my first priority.)
EDIT: why downvotes (without leaving a comment…) ?
I'm not using and apple device, but I use them with wireguard on mobile. Works fine for me.
I'm pretty sure the mobile WiFi handover is handled in your phone firmware and not by the VPN app, I would guess that's got to do with apple software but I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure the mobile WiFi handover is handled in your phone firmware and not by the VPN app, I would guess that's got to do with apple software but I could be wrong.
I also use WireGuard with ProtonVpn on iPhone, which works fine.
With openvpn on iOS and mullvad, they don’t clear your session immediately when you disconnect so it’s easy to eat up all your “devices” and then be stuck without VPN (“too many device”) until their cache clears.
Anyone have a solution for always on mobile VPN using mullvad?
Anyone have a solution for always on mobile VPN using mullvad?
If you can, maybe try wireguard? I have not had any issues with that on my devices roaming between different networks.
I don't use their app though, but the actual Wireguard config files.
I don't use their app though, but the actual Wireguard config files.
they don't use accounts or collect email addresses.
they accept cash in the mail
no matter what you think about crypto they were probably one of if not the first companies in the world to start accepting bitcoin in 2010 and have always self hosted their infrastructure, not offloading it to bitpay or whatever other company that just funnels right into chain analysis companies. back then bitcoin was on the super fringe and the only people interested and involved in it where people that were ideologically aligned with it's vision.
They started funding wireguard before it was cool and before anyone else gave a shit about wireguard.
They are the backbone for mozilla's vpn.
You can never REALLY be sure, but from what I can tell mullvad is the most honest and sincere vpn company in the space and I wouldn't even consider going anywhere else.