Still don't know why I'd need a vpn. My country doesn't go after individuals pirating (yet). That's the only reason, as far as I understand, to have a vpn for pirating. So until they start to take come after individuals, I'm gonna save my money.

[–] BlueRingedOctopus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 74 points 5 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

You only need a VPN in very few countries, some countries where it is needed to avoid fines/getting your internet connection cutoff from your ISP are the US, Germany and a few other countries somewhere in western Europe, also don't pirate polish films without a VPN if you live in Poland, the rest of the world doesn't care about people downloading movies online.

[–] VitabytesDev@feddit.nl 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I am in Greece pirating without a VPN, and even after the new anti-piracy law passed, I haven't received a notice (yet).

[–] BlueRingedOctopus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh I didn't know that, are you using public trackers and leeching popular stuff too ?

[–] VitabytesDev@feddit.nl 3 points 4 days ago

Yes.

Also, I kinda should use a VPN anyway but I don't want to buy it yet.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

In Germany they won't cut off your Internet connection. They'll send you a cease and desist for a few thousand euros.

[–] BlueRingedOctopus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago

That's even worse 😳

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 days ago

I think you've exactly described why some people need a VPN. My ISP does 3 strikes when they get complaints :/

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It’s a general rule, there are exceptions. I’d think it would be obvious why a VPN is needed for some even if you don’t need it.

[–] theonetruedroid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think it's the older way around. There are really only 3 or 4 countries where using a VPN to pirate is needed. I'm just willing to bet you live in one of those countries.

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 days ago

You want a tray of cookies for that original line?

[–] cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Also VPN makes you rather anonymous. The sites won't track you and sometimes the trackers on public torrent files are notorious for tracking.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That is not true, the sites do still track you. VPNs don't prevent tracking, they just make sure the tracking is done through a secure tunnel.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

VPNs don't prevent tracking, they just make sure the tracking is done through a secure tunnel.

The extra hop adds a significant barrier for the website in knowing the actual source IP. The fake source IP is likely used by many other users, and the user you are trying to track can easily rotate VPN IPs.

Its one less identifier for them to use.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Adtech relies on the OpenRTB 2.5/2.6 spec for tracking, you would have removed 1 identifier out of a hundred (one that isn't really used anyway given SSAI is so popular). In addition to that, cookie expiry timers are typically set to 365 days meaning you're VPN would need to enabled at all times to not invalidate multi-hop. WebStorage API based trackers tend to be indefinite.

ORTB spec: https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/OpenRTB-API-Specification-Version-2-5-FINAL.pdf

EDIT: If anyone is looking for more specifics about WHY IP addresses and multi-hop don't matter, the spec includes a mention:

BEST PRACTICE: Proper device IP detection in mobile is not straightforward. Typically it involves starting at the left of the x-forwarded-for header, skipping private carrier networks (e.g., 10.x.x.x or 192.x.x.x), and possibly scanning for known carrier IP ranges. Exchanges are urged to research and implement this feature carefully when presenting device IP values to bidders.

The issue is that mobile is so prevalent and mobile networks rely so extensively on CG-NAT that even with XFF headers, there's no good way to tell if you are going to get an IP address that actually matters. You could potentially put in a lot of auction time trying to figure that out and still just end up with a private address that's unusable. So, aside from the devicetype and the geo object which is used for geo targets and fencing, the device object isn't useful in tracking. Instead adtech uses the user object. This object should contain all your GDPR specifics, any EIDs, 1st party cookie IDs, etc. Even if those change, there usually exists backend mapping that allows for vendors to correlate different user IDs as being the same user ultimately.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

...specifics about WHY IP addresses and multi-hop don't matter.

...you would have removed 1 identifier...

So it can matter.

[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

barely, efectively meaningless

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, multi-hop is pointless for tracking. The logic to it is crazy too. People think VPNs make them anonymous (they don't), but they also think multi-hop makes them MORE anonymous. So anonymity is kind of an absolute concept. Either you are or you are not anonymous. You can't be more anonymous than anonymous. There is no +1.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, multi-hop is pointless for tracking.

The logic to it is crazy too. People think VPNs make them anonymous (they don't), but they also think multi-hop makes them MORE anonymous.

Whether multi-hop matters to tracking is far and away a different discussion than whether multi-hop "makes you anonymous".

I too disagree with the original comment, but also believe the pendulum swung too far the other direction in your replies.

Situations differ. Threat models differ. More hops can, from direct personal experience, make the difference in tracking. Your claim of "...multi-hop is pointless for tracking." has too broad of a scope to be correct.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What specifically about multi-hop makes you think it improves your security? Be specific. What is your "direct personal experience"?

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What specifically about multi-hop makes you think it improves your security?

I haven't mentioned security.

[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

if your security breaks, so does your privacy alongside it

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, that isn't evidence.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

I'm unsure what evidence you are referring to.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

So it can matter.

Remember to read the rest of that sentence:

1 identifier out of a hundred (one that isn't really used anyway given SSAI is so popular).

So, no. Not really.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Remember to read the rest of that sentence:

It doesn't change the contradiction.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You almost had the rest of the sentence there:

one that isn't really used anyway given SSAI is so popular

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You almost had the rest of the sentence there:

That doesn't change the contradiction.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You're trying to argue without evidence (like I had provided). To summarize these exchange so far its:

You giving some marketing crap you read from a VPN provider site on their multi-hop service.
Someone pointing out that it is incorrect with evidence.
You get mad and basically come back with "Nuh-uh!"

Is there some evidence you'd like to provide or is it going to be another "nuh-uh!"?

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You giving some marketing crap you read from a VPN provider site on their multi-hop service.

I'm sorry, but that isn't correct.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but that isn't evidence.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm unsure what evidence you are referring to.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Threat models differ. More hops can, from direct personal experience, make the difference in tracking

Evidence, or it isn't true.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Evidence, or it isn't true.

Anyways, your own statement:

Adtech relies on the OpenRTB 2.5/2.6 spec for tracking, you would have removed 1 identifier out of a hundred (one that isn't really used anyway given SSAI is so popular).

Removing an identifier that is used. (1/100 = matters, "isn't really used" != unused). This contradicts your other statements:

Yeah, multi-hop is pointless for tracking.

...IP addresses and multi-hop don't matter...

Broad statements that don't take into consideration the threat model of other users. Servers you connect to might not be using source IP in any way to track. You might be leaking so many other identifiers, that its completely useless to worry about multi-hop. But this is not true for everyone in every situation.

If its worth anything to you, the Tor Project seems to think multi-hop and IP addresses matter for protecting against tracking.

[–] Mordikan@kbin.earth 1 points 15 hours ago

Unrelated, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, I'm not allowed to ask you for proof of your statement? And if its unrelated, then why did you post it? Its unrelated. Also, you're saying you have an absence of evidence, ergo you have no evidence. Having no evidence does not qualify as evidence.

Removing an identifier that is used. (1/100 = matters, "isn't really used" != unused). This contradicts your other statements:

Just because an identifier exists doesn't mean it is used. BidRequest.imp[i].tagid exists, but advertisers don't use it. I think you are confusing having an option with something being mandatory.

And Tor nodes are not the same thing as VPN multi-hop. If you think that they are, wow! VPN multi-hop is you connecting to a provider's server that connects to another one of the provider's server then out. It's all the provider's network.

And again, if you connected your Firefox browser to Tor, we could still track you. You'd get cookied or localStorage() tracked. When you disconnect from Tor, that stuff is still present in your browser. Almost like the number of hops you take or the IP address used doesn't seem to really matter, huh?

EDIT: I just realized you think that Tor is built using multi-hop VPN. Its a real life Dunning-Kruger effect! I've never encountered this. You are going to do something really stupid and end up in prison.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

That is a good point indeed, but also applies for regular internet use..

load more comments (54 replies)