![]() However, as is made pretty clear by PureVPN’s explanation, the company does log user IP addresses and timestamps which reveal when a user was logged on to the service. That was the case last year when the FBI approached Private Internet Access for information and the company was unable to assist. Now, if PureVPN carried no logs – literally no logs – it would not be able to help with this kind of inquiry. The inquirer would then share timestamps and network logs acquired from Google and ask them to be compared with the network logs maintained by the VPN provider.” “If the user was connected to PureVPN, it would be a PureVPN IP. Now, if someone asks Google who accessed the user’s account, Google would state that whoever was using this IP, accessed the account. “If you are using a VPN, Gmail’s network log would contain the IP provided by PureVPN. Every time they accessed Gmail, the email provider created a network log,” the company explains. ![]() For the sake of this example, let’s say a user logged into their Gmail account. ![]() “A network log is automatically generated every time a user visits a website. PureVPN talks about logs held by Google’s Gmail service to illustrate its point. These, given the right circumstances, can be matched to external activities thanks to logs carried by other web companies. While it doesn’t log user activity (what sites people visit or content they download), it does log the IP addresses that customers use to access the PureVPN service. NO browsing logs, browsing habits or anything else was, or ever will be shared,” the company writes. “PureVPN did not breach its Privacy Policy and certainly did not breach your trust. In a fairly lengthy statement, the company begins by confirming that it definitely doesn’t log what websites a user views or what content he or she downloads. Now, several days after the furor, the company has responded to its critics. On the PureVPN website the company claims to carry no logs and on a general basis, it’s expected that so-called “no-logging” VPN providers should provide people with some anonymity, at least as far as their service goes. “Significantly, PureVPN was able to determine that their service was accessed by the same customer from two originating IP addresses: the RCN IP address from the home Lin was living in at the time, and the software company where Lin was employed at the time,” the agent’s affidavit reads.Īmong many in the privacy community, this revelation was met with disappointment. In a report compiled by an FBI special agent, it was revealed that the Hong Kong-based company’s logs helped the authorities net the alleged criminal. ![]() Launched in April 2016 when he began hacking into the victim’s online accounts, Lin allegedly obtained personal photographs and sensitive information about her medical and sexual histories and distributed that information to hundreds of other people.ĭetails of what information the FBI compiled on Lin can be found in our earlier report but aside from his alleged crimes (which are both significant and repugnant), it was PureVPN’s involvement in the case that caused the most controversy. The Department of Justice described Lin’s offenses as a “multi-faceted” computer hacking and cyberstalking campaign. Lin, 24, of Newton, Massachusetts, was arrested on suspicion of conducting “an extensive cyberstalking campaign” against a 24-year-old Massachusetts woman, as well as her family members and friends. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |