Private Internet Access caught lying about their no-logging statements

larky

there is an interesting thread over at PIA > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/25531/is-the-latest-announcement-private-internet-access-does-not-log-a-response-to-the-purevpn-fiasco/p1

The announcement being referred to in the thread is > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/25521/private-internet-access-does-not-log

Of interest is the bottom of the post from the user 'jbis' at >https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/comment/51001/#Comment_51001 where he states:

"The announcement statement as written now is a lie. Had it read > "In light of recent news, we would like our clients to rest assured that, as presented in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will. Thank you for helping us fight the good fight."

> "as presented in US court" > would have been truthful, accurate, conveyed the same message, and matched the "sentiment" Max-P and PIAJayson conveyed.
I could have lived with that and not said a word about it, but "proven in US court" is a lie. If there was no evidence proof that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." which was provided in US court and the case was not about PIA then its impossible for it to have been "proven in US court" < there was no evidence proof provided in US court and the case was not about PIA, thus no court verdict or decision substantiating it to have been "proven" thus it has not been "proven in US court"

Also of interest is the post from jbis below the other interesting post at > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/comment/51002/#Comment_51002 - where he pretty much says what will happen next with a VPN trying to suppress people bringing forth lies and inconsistencies in statements from a VPN - see where jbis says

"PureVPN had people just like you. Every time someone brought up something that was not correct or seemed to not be true about logging and pointed it out the PureVPN fan boys would jump in to try to discredit them and shout them down and PureVPN support would try to discredit them and explain it away and defend it just like support has done here."

Then see that PIA closed the thread without ever suitably responding to the request they submit the proof they claim was "proven in US court".

By closing the thread and not suitably responding it sure makes them look like they did lie in their announcement and that user 'jbis' was right.

LZ1

Hello!

Without going through the entire thread, it would appear it's more about semantics than much else; perhaps sprinkled with the usual PIA-type marketing.

To my knowledge, PIAs customer support or whomever make the announcements, are not themselves technical experts like with AirVPNs Staff.

Provided that's true, it seems entirely feasible that they thus also wouldn't be experts in precise language use; at least not or maybe especially not, in a legal context. One of the posters, Max-P, is apparently an employee. It's a little disappointing he doesn't seem to manage to post about splitting trust up, as Air does, by using Tor + VPN.

larky

It seems semantics to some over there, but "jbis" has suitably pointed out that saying something and proving something are two different things.

I see his point, and its a decent point. PIA has announced it was "proven in US court" but it was not proven in US court and could not have been because there was never any evidence shown the court that PIA does not store logs and the case was not about PIA so its impossible for it to have been proven in court as there is no court decision/verdict substantiating that PIA has proven they do not store logs. So the use of the word "proven" in the announcement makes the announcement false. The word should have been, as "jbis" pointed out, "presented" so that it would read "as presented in US court" because that's what actually happened and is true when the subponea response was included in the court documents making it "presented" and not "proven". With PIA either not removing the announcement or not changing that one word, then trying to discredit jbis and not provide the evidence they claimed was "proven" then trying to deflect from the subject then closing the original thread to squelch the issue being bought forth any further it makes it look as if PIA is trying to hide something and they are being dishonest.

its an interesting thread, but it seems as if the user 'jbis' is a persistent critter and has started another thread on the subject - https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/26284/pia-looks-like-you-were-not-turthful-in-the-announcement-request-for-info#latest

In the new thread he raises some interesting points he had already raised in the now closed thread but he more clearly defines them in the new thread. Its a more interesting post now that he has more clearly defined. One person replied so far and the response from jbis to that reply is very interesting in that it asks a very interesting question and makes an interesting observation (about PureVPN). His response to the poster (the interesting question and observation is in the last two lines of his reply (quoted below) :

"Thanks for your reply. Already been over that though and knew about it.

However, that's not evidence proof and is simply a response to subponea which by its self is not proof which can be used in court to prove PIA "does not store any type of logs and never will" as it takes evidence of such and not simply saying it.

If there was no evidence proof that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." which was provided in US court and the case was not about PIA then its impossible for it to have been "proven in US court" < there was no evidence proof provided in US court and the case was not about PIA, thus no court verdict or decision substantiating it to have been "proven" thus it has not been "proven in US court"

(statements in response to subponea is not proof or evidence to have something "proven in US court" - such statement responses are just one of the steps in investigation but are not proof of anything by their self other than that a step in the investigation was conducted. Such statements response to subponea are also used to support the evidence, but such statements are not proof on their own. It takes evidence in court and the case actually being about PIA to have it "proven in US court" that "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will.")

The announcement clearly states it was "proven in US court". Having been with PIA since 2012, have you ever seen the evidence proof that substantiates it could or can be "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." or have you just been taking their word for it?

As a consumer or personally - Aren't you tired of seeing the claims being made about VPN products from the VPN company about no-logging yet the VPN company never proves it and only says it?

PureVPN did the same thing. Their customers took their word for it, but we know now that PureVPN had been logging all the time despite saying, just as PIA has done, that they did not store any logs."

Gotta get some more popcorn

DarkSpace-Harbinger

As a consumer or personally - Aren't you tired of seeing the claims being made about VPN products from the VPN company about no-logging yet the VPN company never proves it and only says it?

How exactly do you expect VPN providers to definitively prove that they do not log?

larky

from what I can see he wants them to produce the evidence that was used in court to prove "in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will."

He has a valid point if you think about it for a minute and get out of the "they said it so it must be true" mode many over at PIA seem to be in. PIA is the only VPN service (from what I can find) that has ever claimed it has been "proven in US court" they do not store any type of logs. Other "no-log" VPN suppliers have responded to subponeas for court cases with similar statements as PIA made and I can't find one of them that ever then claimed their 'no-logs' thing were proven in court. Does anyone know of one that has made this claim like PIA has?.

If its been "proven in US court" then there should be evidence that was given the court but in the case PIA cites the case was not about PIA and there was no evidence collected that PIA does or does not not store logs. All there was is mention in court documents that PIA responded to a suponea and their response to the suponea for an investigation of a bomb threat from an individual which the court case was about. The subponea response is not evidence that it has been "proven in US court" they do not store any type of logs, its just subponea response statements from them which were presented in the court document but the evidence reality of "does not store any type of logs and never will." was not proven and using the words "proven in US court" basically means there is something tangible that is evidence their claim is true and not just what they said. In other words just saying it has to backed up by evidence that what they say is true for it to be "proven in US court" and there is none of that evidence at all but PIA claims it was "proven in US court" which is impossible for it to be true because the case was not about PIA.

That's a really bold claim to make and they should be prepared to back it up. So he wants to see the evidence proof and the court decision/verdict that substantiates its been "proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will."

Its not an unreasonable request/demand given the PIA claim and the relation of logging to privacy which is a main inducement selling point of the PIA product and is included in many of their other claims about PIA.

"How exactly do you expect VPN providers to definitively prove that they do not log?"

That's a good question. Maybe it goes along the lines of "how do you prove a negative?" If you have sufficiently defined the scope of what you are looking at and the level of evidence you can prove a negative. The scope here is "Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will." - the use of "any" and "never" gives a scope, and according to the claim by PIA its been "proven in US court" and to be proven in US court there would have had to been some evidence of no-logs stored ever. PIA claimed its been "proven in US court" so its up to them to produce that evidence and that's what the user "jbis" wants to see. How PIA put together that evidence I don't know, but they did claim its been "proven in US court" now they gotta back up that claim with the evidence and he wants to see it.

When a US based company (or a company doing business in the US) makes a claim that is an inducement selling point for a product and a key part of what they are selling, the buyer is also buying what the company claims when they pay for the product. PIA claims to be selling (by the way they advertise and then further promote the product) 'privacy' and 'no-logging' also through their VPN product, not as a 'by product' or 'side effect' of use but as a key component of their product use and a major selling point inducement to buy. In the US a company has to be able to prove their claims if challenged for it. So how PIA would prove it? They made the claim that its been "proven in US court", so that user 'jbis' expects them to produce the evidence proof and as a consumer paying customer he has a legal right to expect them to produce it.

I think he has raised an interesting point and argument here. All VPN suppliers make claims for their product, some make no-logging claims as PIA has. So PIA made this bold claim of "proof" ("proven in US court") and he wants to see the evidence reality proof that was used to prove it in US court.

Ya know what I think happened here:, PIA was arrogant and overzealous in their fanatical approach to promoting PIA and they are so used to feeding paranoia to get and maintain customers and are so used to customers just taking what they say at face value without question (foolish people) that they have developed a sort of group "god like we-are-the-best-ever complex" that makes them think they can get away with a bold untrue claim like this. I think they have forgotten about being completely honest in their dealings with customers. This would not be the first time they have been arrogant and overzealous in their fanatical approach to promoting PIA and been disingenuous/lied. For example: Their claim that they do not and have never logged - that's disingenuous because the company they contracted with to do their customer support did maintain logs - so if PIA does not log then why was the contractor able to maintain logs?

I tend to think PIA plays a lot of word games when it comes to this no-logging thing. I've noticed over time in response to different questions their claims and definition of 'no-logging' changes slightly from time to time from a "absolutely zero logs' to "we do collect..." to until a little over a year ago a flat out statement that "we finally figured our how to do dev-null at the servers so there will be no logs" (which raises the question that there were logs before dev-null despite them having always claimed no-logging and zero-logging from their first day in business).

OmniNegro

PIA... What a harsh place to try to learn anything. Take my advice. Just do not go to their forums. I was there for years, and after that much time, I finally left with the realization that there are two types of trolls. The normal type you can actually talk to, and the type that fester in the darkest corners of Hell like that forum. You cannot have a discussion with those people. While 99% of the people there are just like us and can talk and be reasoned with, the other 1% are literally beyond my ability to describe without using words that would require staff here to banish me for using those words.

PIA itself is not so bad. But if AirVPN required me to share a server with that type of people, I would expect daily cavity searches from every intelligence agency in the world for mere association. And those of you that think this is hyperbole... Go ahead and visit PIA and see for yourself. When you meet him, tell him I said hello and goodbye. (Some few here know exactly whom I am speaking of. Trust me when I promise that you do not want to know him.)

larky

LoL It looks like 'jbis' won the battle. PIA changed the announcement.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/26315/finally-the-truth?new=1

Previously it had this wording: "as proven in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will" for which "proven" was not true

Its been changed to this, as the user 'jbis' pointed out earlier it should have said, which reflects the truth and accuracy of what really happened: "as presented in US court, Private Internet Access does not store any type of logs and never will" for which "presented" is what really happened and is true.

It looks like PIA finally came to their senses and realized "whoops, we just got caught lying."

as jbis predicted, PIA closed the newer thread at - https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/26284/pia-looks-like-you-were-not-turthful-in-the-announcement-request-for-info

'jbis' did post a kind of "told ya so" thread after the announcement was changed - https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/26315/finally-the-truth

he did earn that 'told ya so' thread by holding PIA's feet to the fire to fess up with the truth. so good for him.

So it looks like jbis was right after all, the original announcement was not true.

I like a good 'underdog triumphs' story

larky

@OmniNegro

Who is "him" ?

Yep, the PIA forums are a pit of idiots mostly, there are a few very intelligent and knowledgeable people. However, overall the intelligence and maturity level, including support in some cases, is about that of a four year old kindergarten (actually four year olds are probably more intelligent and mature than most of the users over there). Don't blame you for leaving.

OmniNegro

I will send you a PM to answer you. I dare not mention that name aloud here. Lest I bring this great forums to the level of despair that Hellhole sank to in it's time.

larky

LoL Ok, it looks like PIA removed the 'told ya so' "victory" post he made. Too bad, he really deserved that one. By removing it it makes it look as if PIA does not want people to know they got caught in a lie, while letting their responses defending the original announcement wording ("proven in US court" ) in the other two threads remain by not removing those threads also for the same reason they claim they removed the 'told ya so' 'victory' thread.

Anyway, he won the battle and that's more important because it lets the rest of those at that forum know that PIA can be held accountable for their claims to make them truthful.

It really amazed me though that as obvious as it was other forum members and PIA support could not see the difference between truth and lie, fact and fiction, true and false, that saying something and proving something are two different things, because they have been spoon fed the PIA line so much it seems to have actually warped their sense of reality. Basic marketing brain washing through feeding and reinforcing paranoia and exploiting lack of knowledge on a subject.

OmniNegro

PIA is a strange company. The people working there really seem to attempt to try to make things right. But they see things from one particular way that is not always best for them. Perhaps the marketing people are just liars? Or perhaps they thought this was truth. It does not matter. The truth won in the end. I just wish I had thought to make a screenshot or ten.

larky

I don't think they have real marketing people. There is someone tasked with marketing, can't remember the name right now, but as for real trained and experienced marketing people I don't think so.

I contacted 'jbis'. He tells me that PIA PM'd him in reply to a PM he sent about the closed threads and said they told him they were closed as being disruptive and others had asked for the threads to be closed.

LoL, that's a fine BS reason. there was some disruption (for which PIA has not closed threads before, but anyway) Its obvious the threads were closed because PIA did not like the lie being exposed and they realized 'jbis' would not swallow PIA deflecting company line trying to explain the lie away and kept going after they and their PIA fan boy tried to shout him down and discredit him so they closed the threads.

'jbis' also told me that PIA also told him that he should have PM'd them about the issue and not posted in the forum about it. 'jbis' told me he had originally thought about doing that but after thinking about it he realized all the PIA customers who looked at the forums needed to see this because he believed, based upon past PIA practice, that it would be shouted down and explained away and they would attempt to discredit him in order to maintain the company line they dish out so that's the reason he did it in the forum, to show the forum how PIA would react and to make sure the lie was seen by all. As he predicted, PIA was predictable and did what they always do - tried to explain it away, try to discredit, shout it down by using 'support' and PIA fan boy.

DarkSpace-Harbinger

I will send you a PM to answer you. I dare not mention that name aloud here. Lest I bring this great forums to the level of despair that Hellhole sank to in it's time.

Could i have a PM on that as well?

OmniNegro

Sure. I added you to the PM. Please keep what is said there private. Thanks in advance.

OmniNegro

Last time I read up on the subject, I think it was Jason who was the marketing person. But even back then, years ago, they went through employees like I go through underwear. So I doubt that name is the same or was for more than a week or two. But back then, basically any moderator could, but did not have direct authority to comment on any subject. So at times when a moderator was unavailable for whatever reason, another would just come in and reply in their place on the subject.

I hate to be the devils advocate, but I need to clarify that PIA was always very good to me. And despite what we and even I am saying here today, they maintained a positive attitude and generally tried to be helpful at all times. We have all seen how vile certain VPNs get in the name of "competition", and to this day, I think that AirVPN and PIA are the two VPNs I know of that never played that game of accusing others of every little thing to defame them. The two aforementioned services stand above the rest by simply offering their services at a good price and letting their customers tell the tale.

Some of you here know a user named "rainmakerraw". He is a nice guy and at one time I knew him on the PIA forums. He is the largest part of the reason I am here. It was me trusting his word that this service really is that much better that made me choose to give it a try, despite PIA actually offering me free service there because I was one of the few helpful people at times that people could reliably get help with nearly any problem with OpenVPN or their client or configuring their service and a plethora of other problems.

But before I break my hand patting myself on the back, let me tell you the really high cost of being there in the first place. That troll I mentioned had taught me terrible lessons that persist to this day. Combatting the awful things that person did regularly made me bitter and resentful. No free VPN is worth that. And frankly, AirVPN is worth every single penny I spend on it.

So while I consider myself one of the most stubborn people I ever met, that troll made me look like an infant without the focus to finish a single sentence, much less construct a proper reply. And I am actually proud of myself for having the willpower to finally abandon the PIA forums altogether. Anyone here who saw what it was like near the end will know why. Anyone wondering why, please abandon this wonder. It will not serve you well. I did things there I am most certainly not proud of. And I am ashamed to admit I was ever there in the first place. It really was that bad.

But I have gotten off topic. I basically meant to come here and say that PIA as a whole is not so bad, but the founder/owner made one singular public statement that a single raving lunatic used to defeat every single attempt at moderation on the forums. He did this for years. And if not for that, I would likely still be there. If you think PIA is worth trying, PM me. I may be able to help you pull your head from your rear and avoid what could be one of the worst mistakes you could possibly make. Good day everyone.

RaineyPass

Wow, so many words used for something that seems simple. Not sure how courts work everywhere but nothing is proven in courts in this country, evidence is presented and a decision made by the court. Maybe PIA's name really does mean Pain In the Ass.

Omni- I've been both a site Admin and Mod and can relate very well to what you're saying without knowing any more detail. Once the site Owners, Operators or whoever anoint chosen minions and pack mentality takes over, anything can happen to knowledgeable members, who tend to fight back, get banned or leave, dramatically lowering the site's collective intelligence.

"First kill the intellectuals..." "So, how do you make this thing work?" "I don't know, the people who made it all left." LOL!

larky

jbis tells me that he knows another now-ex PIA forum member and ex-PIA customer called 'bgxsec' who works for a large company who does a bunch of things one of which is (what he does) network compliance testing services for companies like ISP's and major corporations, on government contracts, and has done some work for various VPN services. He said that 'bgxsec' clued him in on the 'contractors' PIA had used to do their customer support because one of their employees now works for his company and filled him in on some stuff that went on with PIA while he was there. PIA has claimed it does not and never has logged and does not store logs, the now ex-PIA customer support company employee said the customer support contractors did though. I happen to know 'bgxsec' also, we cross paths sometimes in our work as our company is actually a contractor for 'bgxsec's' company for some things. Isn't it strange how sometimes when something happens (the PIA 'proven' lie for logs) the relationships between parties seem to sort of cross at that nexus.

If PIA claims they do not and never has logged and does not store logs, and the customer support contractor is an entirely different company and did log and store logs, is/was PIA being honest about no logging?

Its however PIA spins it and the PIA customers in the forum over there will swallow it whole and have the sentiment "Thank you PIA, I worship you, I will sacrifice my first born male child in your honor. Thank you for helping us fight the good fight." and none of them will ever question in the forums and if they do they get shouted or 'explained' down and discredited by PIA support and the PIA fan boys in the forum. Since PIA and the customer support contractor are two entirely different companies, PIA can claim it did not do something and never have to mention the contractor company, so PIA can claim it does not and has never logged and does not store any logs when in reality their contractor did.

PIA plays a lot of word and semantics games.

I still use PIA on my employment mandated systems/devices because the company I work for has a PIA subscription and directs its use. I use AirVPN on my personal systems/devices and it seems superior to the PIA product. The company I work for will be dropping PIA as soon as the subscription expires in about two months, they don't trust them either. I had a personal PIA subscription at one time in the past, never registered at the forums over there because of the 'PIA cult' atmosphere, the place is full of idiots and people that appear to be out of touch with sanity and a few sandwiches short of a picnic, and the forums are as screwed up as a mashed potato sandwich.

("Thank you for helping us fight the good fight" - a favorite PIA support phrase, what a load of crap. Whats one of the first things taught in business management training/school about subordinate employees, "ask them to 'help' and then thank them and they are more likely to do what you want and follow your leadership.")

RaineyPass

PIA can make up whatever answer they want, the internet is great for redefinitioneering experiences, especially immersive media rich ones, whatever that means :0 Who comes up with this self-parodying crap?

Not sure there's any real control over what consumer VPN companies do beyond the checks disinterested reviewers, who should include users, can do. I mean, the whole point is privacy and any kind of identifying logs beside short term ones for making a connection that self-destruct when the connection is broken are inherently non-private. Businesses are in the same boat, proving a VPN did substantial harm by logging is difficult and expensive. Big trust factor.

larky

To put this all together in a single post:

Yes, PIA can say what ever they want and there is no real way the average user can verify it. It does place on them the task to make sure what they say matches that each time and eventually a lie will be caught by critically reviewing what they say. When PIA said it had been "proven" in U.S. court that was a lie. It wasn't a matter of semantics or a mistake to phrase it that way, that much is evidenced by PIA's rigid defense of the lie and trying to explain it away while trying to discredit jbis. Their defense makes it look like they knew they were caught in a lie and wanted the statement to remain as "proven". Look at the post reply from PIAJayson > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/comment/50961/#Comment_50961 > see where he tries to intentionally marginalize and discredit the user 'jbis' (who pointed out the lie) by accusing "logical fallacy" yet jbis showed me screen shots of the PM from PIAJayson where he states that if jbis had PM'd him about it instead of posting about it in the forum then he would have ("quietly") changed the announcement to "presented" instead of "proven". So publicly PIAJayson accuses jbis of "logical fallacy" and calling PIA liars and tries desperately to marginalize and discredit jbis with yet another lie ("logical fallacy", which it was not) yet in private PM PIAJayson basically admits the announcement was a lie thus no logical fallacy, and yes jbis called PIA liars because they are which is the truth. This change would have been very quiet and no one would have noticed. Max-P and PIAJayson knew it was a lie and PIA got caught. What PIA did not want was for that lie to be exposed publicly and that's what the user 'jbis' did by posting publicly about it in the PIA forums.

It was obvious that "proven in U.S. court" was not true. All PIA had to say was "whoops, we made a typo in the announcement thanks for pointing it out", then change the announcement and their lie coverups would have probably not been discovered. Instead they go through all this defense of their lie and try to marginalize and discredit jbis. Anytime someone tries to defend such an obvious falsehood so desperately and rigidly they are lying. jbis tells me that if PIA had just responded that way, that it was a typo, or similar, and made the change instead of trying to defend the lie and marginalize and discredit him that he would have dropped the whole thing. Instead, PIA continues the lie in public while admitting its a lie in private and then further lies and attempts to marginalize and discredit jbis and removing his posts then PIA makes the threads longer by allowing and conducting more personal attacks against jbis then ended up banning him for exposing their lie. Nope, jbis was not banned for being 'disruptive', he was banned for exposing this PIA lie and to stop him from exposing more PIA lies which he had warned he was going to post about after PIA did what they did in the threads.

Personally, I would doubt the integrity of any VPN company who would use such grandiose claims as "proven in US court" when its not true and then tries to cover up the lie.

A company that lies is a liar and being able to point that is not only one of the reasons we have 'free speech' but its necessary to do so to warn others so they do not get screwed.

'jbis' also had other things to bring forth to point out other lies PIA has told and was planning to post them. PIA has since banned the user 'jbis' indicating publicly it was, or would be, for other reasons. However, jbis showed me a screen shot of a PM from the moderator Max-P in which Max-P states that jbis was 'technically correct' but he and others don't like what he posts or how he posts it and jbis would be banned for posting about it. So now, not only was PIA's "proven in US court" a lie, but their claims to be anti-censorship are also a lie because they banned the user jbis to censor him from posting about anything else in the PIA forums they don't like (thus suppressing) which is the very definition of censorship. Although some of the postings jbis made were somewhat argumentative, and maybe in the eyes of some disruptive, he was only trying to defend himself while other users and the moderators were purposefully making the thread 'disruptive' in an effort to discredit jbis and suppress what he was posting yet they were not banned for the same reasons publicly stated by the moderator. PM's jbis showed me indicate the moderator Max-P purposefully allowed the thread to be taken off topic and into disruption and had communicated with those attacking jbis and condoned their attacks and assisted them in doing so. The banning and PM's lends evidence to support that jbis was banned for exposing the lies, with disingenuous public statements and lies obviously biased against jbis and protecting the trolls being made publicly by the moderator lending further weight to evidence that jbis was banned for exposing the lies.

Some of that, the 'disruptive', information posted in the threads concerned a past ex-PIA forum member and VPN user named 'lrryie' who is an attorney. This was started in another thread and was carried over to the threads concerning the PIA "proven" in court logging lie. jbis was accused of being the 'lyrrie' person which is not true, and then accused of the same vile accusations the user 'tomeworm' originally accused the user 'lrryie' of almost two years ago which at that time it was also shown to be lies. jbis showed me information and gave me contact information I used to verify what jbis posted about 'lrryie' as personal first hand knowledge is true. This information directly shows that the vile allegations by the user 'tomeworm' used to attack jbis (and in the past 'lrryie') were a lie. PM screen shots jbis provided also shows the moderator Max-P was aware the false accusations directed at jbis to discredit him were lies but refused to stop the user 'tomeworm' from posting them and that Max-P purposely assisted 'tomeworm' in posting the false accusations by communicating with him and condoning him do so in attempts to discredit jbis to suppress the posting of the PIA lies. This an example of what PIA will do to cover up their lies and keep them from being exposed.

Edit addition: I just noticed this. In the now changed announcement at > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/forum/discussion/25521/private-internet-access-does-not-log < it gives a link to the PIA "help desk" article here > https://helpdesk.privateinternetaccess.com/hc/en-us/articles/229347907-Do-You-Log- < in that help desk thing it still states :

"There are several companies who claim they don’t log, but do anyway at the end of the day. In contrast, we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything..."

"to prove" - really? "public court records to prove" ? really? Even after all this PIA still puts forth the lie of "proven in US court". There are for a fact zero "public court records to prove" they do not log. For a court record to substantiate "proof" that PIA does not log there would be a court decision/verdict which says that PIA does not log, PIA would have had to submit evidence proof they do not log (not just say they did not), and the case (referenced in the help desk article link) would have named PIA as a defendant and it does not so the case was not even about PIA. There are no such "public court records to prove" PIA does not log, its a lie. Perhaps it was an oversite which caused them not to cover up the whole thing, or maybe they did not realize the "help desk" article had that in it. Who knows, but what ever the reason its still a lie. Then look how they phrase:

"There are several companies who claim they don’t log, but do anyway at the end of the day."

then immediately after this they have "In contrast, we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything..." which is a lie.

Without presenting one piece of information and/or evidence to support the claim "There are several companies who claim they don’t log, but do anyway at the end of the day." they state it as though its fact and although that may or may not be true depending on the VPN company, immediately behind it they claim "In contrast, we have public court records to prove we don’t log anything" which is a lie. PIA told a lie to show contrast. What a joke. Then this "we don’t log anything" statement, when its known their customer support contractors logged, their data centers log, and PIA logs information about user VPN use such as, for example, sites/places visited/viewed or downloads with specific times, which is (one reason) why PIA assigns a specific login name for a customer VPN user account and will not allow it to be changed.

According to an ex-PIA employee, PIA does log PIA user account activity on the VPN: The information logged is written to a collective record that is a private business record for system monitoring. This record, due to the manner in which this information is collected, is considered (part of) a "proprietary method" and thus is 'legally' not disclosable in response to subpoenas or advertising or response to questions about logging. This allows them to 'legally' say they do not log when in reality they do in this "proprietary method" record. The information recorded in this "proprietary method" record is user activity on the VPN such as the ISP IP address the user connected to the PIA gateway server with, where the users goes on the internet, times and dates of the user activity, and how many devices the user has connected. This is tagged with the user PIA provided user account name used to log into the VPN system, this is the reason PIA will not allow this user account name to be changed once assigned.

According to an ex-PIA employee: First, the PIA VPN only encrypts between your device (PC, phone, etc...) and the 'public IP assigning" regional gateway you are connected to. Second, the data leaves the regional gateway onto the internet un-encrypted. Third, and people do not realize this, before you hit the actual PIA "public IP" (the VPN IP the internet sees) regional gateway your traffic passes through a 'gateway server' that is in the same IP range as the TAP adapter (e.g. 10.x.x.x) and that begins the tracking of the PIA assigned user account ID and VPN activity of that PIA assigned user account. At this point your traffic is in the PIA network and is no longer encrypted. The user traffic is then passed onto the internet via the regional gateway unencrypted by the PIA encryption. Between that TAP IP range 'gateway' server entry to the PIA VPN system and, before leaving, the regional gateway server out on to the internet your traffic is not encrypted any longer and is the point where PIA logs VPN user activity in their "proprietary method" record. Now you know how PIA is able to do it, and how they log VPN users activity on the VPN and match it up specifically to a specific user and log it by using their "proprietary method" record. PIA claims that no log is written to the gateway server by writing such to dev-null which essentially writes it to nowhere as though it never existed, but this only involves that at the gateway server and the "proprietary method" record is written elsewhere and maintained for a period of time thus PIA can say that no log is written at the gateway server. (note: this is a simplistic explanation provided by an ex-PIA employee, its actually more complicated than that presented here but the end effect is the same and that end effect is PIA user activity on the PIA VPN is logged by PIA.)

PIA fools people with this "proprietary methods" thing all the time and have been for years, for example, in 2014 this person who got it in an email response from them when he asked about how they enforce their TOS, that guy got lied to about logging. Yet, PIA in their answers to him 'danced' around answering the questions in the specifics he was wishing for without ever mentioning what happens to the VPN user traffic inside the PIA VPN network before it gets past the gateway onto the internet. Thanks to jbis and some ex-PIA employees, its now known what happens there - its not encrypted and things other than "traffic" that can be logged are, for example, connecting ISP IP address, VPN IP address, times and dates of places visited, site addresses visited, all matched together via the specific PIA user PIA provided log in ID, all logged in the PIA "proprietary method" record. Based upon the PIA response to him he decided to stay with PIA, Its like he thought "I can trust them because they say so". This is not to be critical, or make fun, or in anyway imply the guy who got that answer from PIA is in anyway dumb, he seems like a reasonably average smart guy and went beyond what most people selecting a VPN would do to get answers. However, it is an example of the way most VPN users think about logging on VPN's, they think the "we do not log because we say so" concept answer (which is what this guy got) is somehow some type of 'proof' when it really isn't and think the VPN company can be trusted because of it. Just small examples of the word, semantics, and contradictions games PIA plays which causes people to give up and say "ya just have to trust them" when its clearly obvious and common sense that word - semantics - and contradictions games are not something to which a person should trust their 'privacy' and 'anonymity', especially since PIA got caught publicly lying about their "do not log" thing being "proven" in court.

The only claim that PIA makes about logging in their advertising (https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/) are "No traffic logs" and "No VPN Traffic Logs" (in which the two are contradictory as one is broadly general in nature and the other specific in nature), but they say in their help desk articles and in their forums "we don’t log anything" when traffic is not the only thing that can be logged and in their advertising they never claim that "we don’t log anything" and they never define what their definition of "traffic" is in their advertising. Things other than "traffic" that can be logged are, for example, connecting ISP IP address, VPN IP address, times and dates of places visited, site addresses visited, all matched together via the specific PIA user PIA provided log in ID, this can be used to Identify a specific VPN user. PIA never says it does not log these other things and now we know, with the help of jbis and ex-PIA employees, they do log these things in their "proprietary method" record. In other help desk articles from PIA we see similar concept statements such as "PIA absolutely does not keep any logs, of any kind, period." PIA likes to throw around the word "log" (or "logging") a lot, that's what, in the common collective understanding, users of VPN's think like that if the PIA VPN company says they don't log then PIA is doing a good thing and somehow by paying for and using the PIA falsely claimed 'no log' PIA VPN that users are "helping fight the good fight". The only thing paying customers users of the PIA VPN are doing to "help" anything is "helping" PIA get and keep their money to continue supporting the PIA lies so PIA can get other customers who pay money. PIA appeals to that misplaced naive common understanding which for some reason causes people to say they 'trust' PIA when that trust is not deserved or earned. Its one of the main things VPN users want to hear so PIA tells them what they want to hear and they (the PIA VPN user masses) are happy with that without ever considering that PIA does not have to, and will not, disclose they do employ their "proprietary method" record "logging" which contains a record of user activities on the PIA VPN which is in reality logging.

A person should always critically examine such company statements about 'no logging'. After all, its about and has a great impact on the 'privacy' and 'anonymity' they hold so precious to them so they should make sure that this precious thing is being cared for by the VPN company to which they are entrusting it. A person should not rely on guess work and "ya just have to trust them" or just what the VPN company says. Be critical, go through their 'faq's' and help material, their marketing/advertising/promoting statements and other statements they make and see if they all match up with no contradictions and don't simply lead to other questions for which the answer is just what the VPN company says not backed up by any hard proof. Test the VPN company statements with questions to see how they respond, see if they try to explain away inconsistencies with just more of what they say in a "because we say so" concept manner. Check if the company keeps using the same "we do not log" or "there is no logging" concept over and over again in response to questions about logging, yet in their documentation (e.g. Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, faqs, help info, and answers to other questions, etc...) ,or absence of such, they have things which can only be accomplished by logging something or making a record of it or monitoring in someway, if they do keep answering with the "no logs" concept when asked about these specifics its an indication of dishonestly. Ask to see the proof of their 'no logging' claims and carefully and critically examine their responses and don't just accept the circular reasoning argument (which is always an indication a company is not being forth coming) concept of "we do not log, we can prove we do not log because we say no logs exist and we do not log therefore we have proven we do not log" which is nothing more than more of what they say and is not proof especially if they make obviously false and lies like PIA did in this case. Ignore what other users say about the company logging practices, they really don't know either despite some of them using reassuring wording such as, for example, "I can verify', and do not reply to the other users or discuss with other users on the logging subject in the company forums but rather address your questions to the VPN company its self if you post such questions in the company forums. Do not accept the "if we do not log and there are no logs then how can we prove there are no logs and we do not log" concept from the company because logs do not have to be called 'logs' and can be any thing the company chooses to call them (e.g. records, "proprietary method", database, etc...). If your critical examination questions about logging and enforcing the TOS are answered with vague, cryptic, or undefined terms or statements such as, for example, "we have proprietary methods" or "we have other methods" concepts then suspect such answers as being avoidance and dishonest. Do not accept the company responses to subpoena which give the "we do not log" concept as 'proof' the company does not log because it is not proof and is just more of what they say and can be "legally" truthful but not reality truthful because the company, like PIA does, can consider their 'record' which is in reality logging of VPN user activity as a "proprietary method" which legally (in the U.S., and in many other countries too) is exempt from being exposed (by the company) publicly or in advertising or in response to customer questions or in response to subpoena for user information or activity, so the company can "legally" say they do not log or have no logs or record and be "legally" truthful" when in reality truthful they do. If your critical review questions are answered by the company with circular reasoning or talking about other things trying to support their statements that never really answer, or tend to deflect from providing a straight answer, or do not provide a 'proof' the answer is true to, the questions drop the VPN company service immediately (even if you do loose your money) or don't subscribe to (or purchase) it because they are trying to hide something and are being dishonest. Do not accept the "we say it so it must be true" concept from them as being something upon which to base trust because it is absolutely for a fact not something upon which to base trust.

It's your money, 'privacy', and 'anonymity', if you want to trust it to a company dishonest circular reasoning argument, word, semantics, and contradictions games and lies like PIA puts forth - then let me know and send your money to me because I have a really cheap bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you, because I say so, honest - which is one of the oldest con concepts known and which is essentially the same concept thing PIA is saying of "give us your money and we will protect your 'privacy' and 'anonymity', because we say so, honest". LoL - Along with the PIA actions in this case, the statements in the PIA help desk article should read "There are several companies who claim they don’t log, but do anyway at the end of the day. We just come right out and lie to you up front about it."

My personal assessment and review conclusion for this whole lie exposure event is this; Private Internet Access (PIA) plays a lot of word, semantics, and contradictions games. They use disingenuous statements and advertising, are evasive, make contradictory and vague misleading statements unsupported by actual proof fact, make disingenuous and untruthful unsupportable legal and technologically impossible claims, and will intentionally lie and cover up lies. PIA is not transparent, they are deceptive and misleading and disingenuous in their dealings with existing and prospective customers concerning logging and other things. PIA uses threats (of banning on their forums, or terminating accounts), intimidation and bullying, lies, disingenuous and false circular reasoning argument and statements, deceptive practices, discrediting and marginalizing, tactics against their own customers in their forums if a customer questions their practices or statements critically (especially their no-log claims) in their forums, in attempts to suppress (censor) the exposure of PIA lies and to control what is and is not posted. PIA does log user activity on the VPN and makes disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, statements, and lies, about it. Their employees are willing to lie and cover up lies to keep PIA lies from being exposed, and employ yet more lies and the activity and lies of others in attempts to discredit and suppress those who would post things which make PIA look bad or point out the PIA word, semantics, contradictions games or lies they tell. A liar is a liar, company or not, PIA and their employees are liars. Private Internet Access is a 'threat' to customer 'privacy' and 'anonymity' and is not worthy of trust, PIA should be avoided.

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with, or often (although maybe wrongly as there is no evidence to support he actually said it) credited to, P. T. Barnum, a mid-19th century American showman. If you subscribe to the Private Internet Access VPN service and/or believe PIA's "we do not log" thing or "trust" PIA then you have substantiated that "There's a sucker born every minute" and apparently PIA knows it.

(the following included as disclaimer: please note the above is information based upon that collected and shown to me by the ex-PIA forum user 'jbis'. It includes information from ex-PIA employees, an ex-PIA customer service contract employee, a person who (I was informed) "worked" with the PIA lawyer (i'm not sure of the exact "working" relationship at this time, however, provided email communications from this 'relationship' substantiates the presented information), some data center employees, along with various other information sources such as PM's and forum posts and a few internal PIA documents and emails jbis was able to get. It turns out that 'jbis' had actually been looking into PIA's claims of "no logging' for a while and its just coincidence this opportunity to post something pointing out a PIA lie came along. He encountered an ex-PIA employee on reddit which provided information that led him to other things and people who also provided information. Information was also provided by an ex-PIA support contractor company person who was able to provide other information. I've managed to contact one of the ex-pia employees which verified the information about PIA's actual "logging" practices with the "proprietary method" records thing. An ex-PIA employee also provided the explanation of how PIA logs (in a simplistic form, its actually a little more complicated than that) using the PIA VPN user account ID assigned by PIA. I suppose that PIA does deserve a tiny 'infamous' amount of thanks for this because had it not been for the colossal blunder of the PIA employees 'Max-P' and 'PIAJayson' in how they responded to the PIA user 'jbis', 'jbis' may not have put these puzzle pieces together and let us know and we would not have been able to witness to the greatest mistake a VPN company professing to protect user 'privacy', and 'anonymity' can make which is lying to, and being dishonest and disingenuous with, their customers and the public like PIA has done. Still waiting for some of the other 'jbis' sources to respond to verify some other things provided by 'jbis', but based upon that verified as true by ex-PIA employees and further substantiated by other information, the substantiating email information, the PM's, the forum posts, and what is already known to be true, is enough to lead me to my personal assessment and review conclusion opinion stated above.)

SDBF

As a consumer or personally - Aren't you tired of seeing the claims being made about VPN products from the VPN company about no-logging yet the VPN company never proves it and only says it?

How exactly do you expect VPN providers to definitively prove that they do not log?

By sacrificing their first born on the 1st Blood Moon of the Winter Solstice ....

Tommie

Some of that, the 'disruptive', information posted in the threads concerned a past ex-PIA forum member and VPN user named 'lrryie' who is an attorney. This was started in another thread and was carried over to the threads concerning the PIA "proven" in court logging lie. jbis was accused of being the 'lyrrie' person which is not true, and then accused of the same vile accusations the user 'tomeworm' originally accused the user 'lrryie' of almost two years ago which at that time it was also shown to be lies. jbis showed me information and gave me contact information I used to verify what jbis posted about 'lrryie' as personal first hand knowledge is true. This information directly shows that the vile allegations by the user 'tomeworm' used to attack jbis (and in the past 'lrryie') were a lie. PM screen shots jbis provided also shows the moderator Max-P was aware the false accusations directed at jbis to discredit him were lies but refused to stop the user 'tomeworm' from posting them and that Max-P purposely assisted 'tomeworm' in posting the false accusations by communicating with him and condoning him do so in attempts to discredit jbis to suppress the posting of the PIA lies. This an example of what PIA will do to cover up their lies and keep them from being exposed.

This is the same exact behavior that got you banned from PIA's forum. It wasn't that you called them out for their duplicity. I've done the same thing multiple time and have yet to be banned for it. In fact I was calling them out in the very same thread you're referring to here. No, you were banned for posting walls and walls of redundant bloviating text (we're seeing that again now here too) attempting to convince a disinterested audience by the massive volume of words hurled at them in thread after thread after thread.

While as you know I fully agree that PIA has some very serious and long standing problems (anyone who's followed my comments in their forums knows where I stand with them), why would you go airing your personal effronteries with PIA here? And now you attack me here by name too, as thought there were some sort of alliance between me and PIA mods?

You're just polluting a relatively pristine forum and ensnaring the members here in the morass of your goo when no one here could care less about your personal beef with PIA. Please stop this.

larky

(again, this posted in error. sorry. Damn thing keeps scrolling up on me and I ended up clicking the wrong post "Post" button again. Need to swap to another browser)

larky

"

I did not "attack" you. You are mistaking me for someone else. I simply posted about, and based upon, the exposing information the PIA forum user 'jbis' provided me, my verification's of the information, and what was obvious from the threads over at PIA.

You are one of the people which assisted PIA in covering up their lies by trying to discredit and suppress the PIA forum user 'jbis' in posting about the lie PIA was caught in. You seem to see the past PIA forum user 'lrryie' everywhere then accused the PIA forum user 'jbis' of being 'lrryie' when he is not and now you seem to think I am 'jbis'. I have never registered and been a forum member at the PIA forums and have never posted anything at the PIA forums under any name, could not stand the 'cult' like atmosphere and the many people there that seem a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. According to what has been verified so far, and now your post here, it seems that 'jbis' was correct about you. Of course you are free to register here and post but maybe you should keep your personal grievances and attacks obsessions against another person to your self and not carry them with you into another forum directing them against others that are not the person with which you are obsessed. Your first post here is a personal attack against me thinking i'm someone else with which you have a personal beef and seem to be obsessed. You seem upset that 'jbis' exposed you for what you really are, but I am not 'jbis' and its you who committed the actions you did at the PIA forums as described in this thread. Please direct your unhealthy obsessions elsewhere and don't pollute others threads here with them as you purposely did over at the PIA forum and the PIA forum mods over there allowed and assisted you in doing.

As for me posting what I posted here, this is the off topic forum of AirVPN and this material is posted in the correct forum here. It does not involve any "personal beef with PIA", although I do admit I do not like PIA much due to their customer adverse and detrimental practices, but its true as posted being based upon the disclaimer information in the post bottom at : https://airvpn.org/topic/23959-private-internet-access-caught-lying-about-their-no-logging-statements/?p=66323

therion

The same thing. Over and over. Talk about boring.

-Invictus-

samadams

The same thing. Over and over. Talk about boring.

-Invictus-

Indeed. So sorry to see it now happening here. This behavior (and even much worse) is exactly what got him and his sock puppets banned at PIA. Not that PIA doesn't deserve the criticism. However, criticism can and should be constructive, and there simply is never a need for it to be communicated in the form of walls and walls of redundant bloviating text. No one should have to endure that.

Private Internet Access caught lying about their no-logging statements

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post