Leaderboard

Thank you, as an AirVPN co-founder I am very proud whenever I come to know that AirVPN has been immensely useful thanks to its mission. Compliance to the mission is what made AirVPN immensely useful to so many people around the world. What you propose is potentially a betrayal of the mission and would bring us to a slippery slope: once you start monitoring, you open a Pandora box which may become quickly destructive. The matter must be approached carefully as your reasoning is even the rationale which is bringing the EU to an attempt to ban end-to-end encryption in chats etc. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/10/eu-lawmakers-must-reject-proposal-scan-private-chats Consider that the alleged infringements we come to know from IP address black list compilers are a negligible percentage (something around ~ 0.1%) over the total amount of sessions and users of the service. It means that the infringers amount is not greater than the general amount of civil or criminal infringers in the society, i.e. every year in every EU country at least 1 citizen out of 1000 infringes civil or criminal laws outside the Internet (and that's only the ascertained amount of infringements). Many blocks you experience are not even caused by infringements committed intentionally, but simply by infected computers. Several black list compilers just add IP addresses, or even IP address ranges, after a simple, unverified claim by literally anybody showing a text log. So the VPN server might have done nothing, but its address is black listed anyway because in the past, from an IP address in the same range or assigned to the same ASN, some infringement was alleged. Then web site administrators add black lists in the dangerous illusion of adding security to their sites. It is an illusion according to stats which show that the amount of successful web site breaches has not decreased in the last 5 years, and in reality it is just a, often unaware, step to indirectly jeopardize privacy, because it will push some users to ask for more surveillance and privacy intrusions by their own provider in order to have a "clean" IP address (exactly what you have done here): Kind regards pj

Hello! The main reason of complaints and black list presence of IP addresses are attacks via HTTP(S) and spam mails. A server with blocked outbound ports 80 and 443 blocked would be avoided by anyone, we think, while we might consider to block outbound ports 465 and 587 (outbound port 25 is already blocked on all servers) and renounce to our fight to defend net neutrality. This will require however a mission as well as Terms of Service modification, as noted by @OpenSourcerer , so it's not a viable solution for the current management administration and the contracts with our current users. Out there you can already find tons of VPNs which violate net neutrality by inspecting your traffic and blocking (or shaping) applications, protocols and ports. Or you can just use your own ISP. The peculiarity of AirVPN is that it doesn't enforce that rubbish.. If one asks for traffic inspection, ports blocking and so on and so forth to get a "cleaner" IP address, then he/she probably "deserves" a pervasive surveillance and must take into account that his/her personal information and his/her behavior will be sooner or later used against him/her, as it already happened to millions and millions of people around the world in the last years. Kind regards

Hello! Please see our previous reply in this thread and also the following one, where we explain more thoroughly our point of view and some facts: https://airvpn.org/forums/topic/50724-two-new-1-gbits-servers-available-us/?do=findComment&comment=216468 Just a brief addition: your above quoted sentence imply that protecting privacy in an agnostic network means supporting net abusers, which is an inadmissible and shameful idea that we strongly reject. This concept is one of the "moral" or "ethical" justifications to pervasive surveillance in virtually all countries controlled by human rights hostile regimes, and in a few "Western" countries too: since someone somewhere someday might commit a crime via the Internet, let's enforce blanket data retention and pervasive packet inspection for everyone, so Internet will be a "safe place" for the "law abiding, conforming" citizen. Your consideration has been and is the founding argument for power groups having the hidden agenda to expunge the right to privacy from the list of fundamental rights. Consider that one of the strictly necessary conditions for any dictatorship to survive is the effective suppression of the right to privacy. Kind regards

Hello! An exception could be attempted, as "opt-in" and not part of the main service, in order to avoid contract violation with our customers. We need a legal advice first, however under a practical point of view we really don't know who would connect to a server where you can't do HTTP(S). As a second option we could run servers which only block outbound ports 22, 25, 465 and 587 (to prevent many SSH attacks, and spam mails), but again we would be subjected to black listing due to HTTP(S) based attacks (malicious forms, injections etc. etc.). Frankly it seems that the pervasive monitoring and logging required to punish those who allegedly perform attacks based on HTTP(S) would impact legit users remarkably, and it would make our service more or less the same as using directly your ISP (or worse in some circumstances), as it already happens with most VPNs out there. Kind regards

True, but if NN = let's put everything on web hosts that are blacklisted most everywhere, then it may make sense to update the mission statement or at least make some exceptions to it. Edit: I just want to clarify I like AirVPN very much. My posts here are not a complaint, but just a shower thought-level suggestion.

This directly violates AirVPN's mission statement, in which the pledge to Net Neutrality is formulated. We've been noticing this in the community for quite some time now. Especially M247 is quite a common point of complaint.