Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Clarification of your monitoring policies


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 john1973

john1973

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

In the TOS, you allude to reserving the right to terminate service, and in another thread you state "In the ToS, you see that in practice we reserve the right to terminate the service whenever we wish. In the worst case you may lose 54 EUR."

There is a list of items that customers agree not to do, otherwise you may exercise this right.

However, you also state repeatedly that you do not log activity.

So this leads to a couple questions...

1) How can you identify somebody doing something that is against your TOS if you cannot identify your users or what they are doing. Please give examples.
2) If subpoenaed by law enforcement, and if your legal team found that you had no grounds to deny the order, would you then log the activities of your users without revealing this action to your users? Yes or no.

Thank you.

#2 Staff

Staff

    Advanced Member

  • Staff
  • PipPipPip
  • 7791 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:07 PM

In the TOS, you allude to reserving the right to terminate service, and in another thread you state "In the ToS, you see that in practice we reserve the right to terminate the service whenever we wish. In the worst case you may lose 54 EUR."

There is a list of items that customers agree not to do, otherwise you may exercise this right.

However, you also state repeatedly that you do not log activity.

So this leads to a couple questions...

1) How can you identify somebody doing something that is against your TOS if you cannot identify your users or what they are doing. Please give examples.



Hello!

We can't do that ex-ante.

2) If subpoenaed by law enforcement, and if your legal team found that you had no grounds to deny the order, would you then log the activities of your users without revealing this action to your users? Yes or no.



No.

Kind regards

#3 john1973

john1973

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:25 AM

Thank you.

So in summary, you would not see that someone is violating the ToS unless you are in a position where you are specifically watching for a particular action, and you are able to tie that specific thing to a particular user. From other threads that I have read, I believe that at this point in time, you have never been in the situation where you have been asked to identify a user and actually done so. Is this correct?

Alternatively, have you been asked to identify a user and been unable to do so?

Do you have general triggers already in place that always run? For example, for a site that people may visit that is a known violation of the ToS agreement (or anything like that)?

JDS

#4 h4ck3r10

h4ck3r10

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:29 AM

NO LOGS! NO LOGS! NO FUCKING LOGS!
Don't be idiot

#5 h4ck3r10

h4ck3r10

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:34 AM

son of a bitch
use
http://www.astrill.com/

or

http://hidemyass.com/

#6 Barack01

Barack01

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:27 AM

. Does Airvpn keep ANY logs which would allow your staff or a 3rd party to match an IP-address and time stamp to a user of Airvpn Service?

___________________________________________________________
Under what jurisdictions does Airvpn operate?

___________________________________________________________
If Airvpn were to receive a DMCA takedown notice or European equivalent, how are these handled?

___________________________________________________________
How are payments linked to individual user accounts?

#7 Baraka

Baraka

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:26 AM

Barack and John, you really need to read this:

https://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/
[Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?]

Make sure you read the comments, too. AirVPN's reputation is absolutely stellar and that reputation has been well-earned over the past couple of years.

Make sure to also search for evidence on the various search engines for at least a couple of hours that they've ever turned over information to ANYONE. You won't find any. I know because I've performed that search myself.

Some of the questions here are unbelievable, such as John's that ask if Air somehow monitors which sites its customers visit. I just can't believe it! That kind of behavior is befitting of a totalitarian state- something that this service has completely rejected in every way since its very first minute of operation.

#8 divedancer

divedancer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 08:42 PM

John1973. you do not seem to be very happy with this service from the tone of your questions.Would it not be better if you just changed VPN'S ?

#9 john1973

john1973

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:34 PM

Barack and John, you really need to read this:

https://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/
[Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?]

Make sure you read the comments, too. AirVPN's reputation is absolutely stellar and that reputation has been well-earned over the past couple of years.

Make sure to also search for evidence on the various search engines for at least a couple of hours that they've ever turned over information to ANYONE. You won't find any. I know because I've performed that search myself.

Some of the questions here are unbelievable, such as John's that ask if Air somehow monitors which sites its customers visit. I just can't believe it! That kind of behavior is befitting of a totalitarian state- something that this service has completely rejected in every way since its very first minute of operation.



That article is how I found AirVPN. My question was completely reasonable given the ToS. No need to be condescending. That doesn't help anyone.

#10 Baraka

Baraka

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:41 AM

My apologies. I didn't mean to be condescending.

In the end, you have to choose whom you trust. There are only a handful of VPN providers who stand up for privacy, anonymity and security like AirVPN does. They can make any claims they want. Only the test of time will verify their claims. The same goes for any other VPN provider.

I think the bottom line remains that Air has no known history of turning over information to anyone, for any reason. And that's the kind of integrity, principle and trust that I'm looking for in a VPN.

#11 oscar1

oscar1

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 18 July 2015 - 07:14 PM

I also have that question 

 

In the Terms of Service it states:

"5) TERMINATION OF SERVICE: 

  1. You agree that AirVPN operators, in their sole discretion, for any violation of the Terms of Service point 4), and without penalty, may terminate your use of the Service at any time. You agree that AirVPN operators and Air will not be liable to you or any third party for any such termination."

 

In the TOS, you allude to reserving the right to terminate service; However, you also state repeatedly that you don't monitor activity.
How can you know if somebody is doing something  against your Terms of Service if you don't monitor activity?



#12 Staff

Staff

    Advanced Member

  • Staff
  • PipPipPip
  • 7791 posts

Posted 18 July 2015 - 10:29 PM

Hello,

 

thank you for your question which provides us with an additional opportunity to clarify our rules and, once again, our mission.

We confirm that we do not monitor online activities of our OpenVPN clients and that we do not inspect traffic. However, it's perfectly possible to verify some infringements of our ToS without monitoring activities and without inspecting traffic.

Just two trivial examples to make it clear.

1) A customer runs a web site or an FTP server behind one of our VPN servers which infringes, or aids or abets infringement of, human rights as enshrined in the ECHR. A human rights defending organization or a jurisdictionally competent authority warns us or one of our providers about the infringement. We proceed, on the Internet (no connection to VPN servers required), to verify the claim and if we see that the claim of the infringement is correct, at our sole discretion, we start a procedure for violation of our ToS.

2) A customer runs a web site behind one of our VPN servers which surreptitiously tries to inject malware. We receive a complaint for that and we proceed as above.

It must be clear that we are configured as a mere conduit of information as providers of a service in the Information Society according to Directive 2000/31/EC (see below articles 12, 14 and 15).

 

When our service can be assimilated to "hosting" (this is possible due to remote port forwarding), an essential requisite to have exemption of liability for infringements perpetrated by users of our service, is acting "expeditiously" to put an end to an infringement when we are notified about it.

 

While a "notification" can be interpreted as an official notification by a jurisdictionally competent authority only, in cases of alleged infringements of human rights, malware injections, phishing services aimed to catch fraudulently personal data,, and services aiding or abetting infringements of human rights (including the fundamental right to privacy), we proceed to check claims even if they come from private entities, when such entities have (at our sole discretion) a good reputation and/or can provide (at our sole discretion) substantial proof. The general reasons for which we are willing to extend scope of article 14.3, even when we are not legally bound to do so:

 

  • a quick intervention can be essential when human rights are at stake and other critical activities are being performed
  • a lack of intervention and/or a delayed intervention may imply a betrayal of our mission and/or cause substantial damage to human beings and/or harm safety of a human being
     

Article 12

"Mere conduit"

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:

(a) does not initiate the transmission;

(B) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and

© does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

2. The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.

3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

 

Article 14

Hosting

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that:

(a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent; or

(B) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the provider.

3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement, nor does it affect the possibility for Member States of establishing procedures governing the removal or disabling of access to information.

 

Article 15

No general obligation to monitor

1. Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.

2. Member States may establish obligations for information society service providers promptly to inform the competent public authorities of alleged illegal activities undertaken or information provided by recipients of their service or obligations to communicate to the competent authorities, at their request, information enabling the identification of recipients of their service with whom they have storage agreements.

Kind regards
 







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Servers online. Online Sessions: 15033 - BW: 60809 Mbit/sYour IP: 54.197.24.206Guest Access.