Supporting the cause, I guess. People have been talking about Mozilla Co. turning into a service company for years. It's basically the only way for Mozilla Co. to reduce their dependency on Google.
Supporting the cause, I guess. People have been talking about
Mozilla Co. turning into a service company for years. It's basically
the only way for Mozilla Co. to reduce their dependency on Google.
I hear what you're saying and I'm conflicted about it. I want to support the ongoing development of Firefox, but one of the conditions of this service is that you associate your Mullvad...
I hear what you're saying and I'm conflicted about it. I want to support the ongoing development of Firefox, but one of the conditions of this service is that you associate your Mullvad subscription with your Firefox Account, which I've purposely avoided creating. The requirement of pinning VPN usage to an additional trackable identity (in an unnecessary middle-man layer between you and the VPN) somewhat contradicts their stated goals of privacy.
A user like yourself, that requires anonimity, is different from one that requires security. If you are looking for anonimity, you will probably go through more hoops to get it and will do...
A user like yourself, that requires anonimity, is different from one that requires security. If you are looking for anonimity, you will probably go through more hoops to get it and will do research on the providers. Also, losing your account isn't an issue.
For basic users however, the simplest way to a VPN is through an easy to use tool from a trusted party.
Hold up, why are Mozilla launching this as a limited Windows 10 invite-only beta when There are already a plethora of similarly priced VPNs on the market that take a similar approach towards...
Hold up, why are Mozilla launching this as a limited Windows 10 invite-only beta when
There are already a plethora of similarly priced VPNs on the market that take a similar approach towards ensuring user privacy by not logging user activity (Private Internet Access, BTGuard, to name a few.)
Mozilla's technology is based on WireGuard servers provided by Mullvad, who already provide this themselves at a slightly more expensive price point to Mozilla?
Regarding PIA in particular, their recent US$128 million acquisition by a company with a sketchy past is probably leaving a lot of their current customers considering alternatives. Myself included.
They also hired Mark Karpeles as their CTO last year, which is completely insane. Someone famous for getting hacked and fraudulently hiding it from their customers should not be anywhere near a...
They also hired Mark Karpeles as their CTO last year, which is completely insane. Someone famous for getting hacked and fraudulently hiding it from their customers should not be anywhere near a privacy/trust-based company, never mind in one of the top positions.
I've been using the beta of their Firefox Private Network browser extension which has worked well for me and has been mostly seamless. I find it interesting that they're using two different...
I've been using the beta of their Firefox Private Network browser extension which has worked well for me and has been mostly seamless. I find it interesting that they're using two different providers for the two different products: CloudFlare for the extension-level service and Mullvad for the device-level service. They also had a partnership with ProtonVPN last year so maybe they're shopping around providers right now?
I will definitely sign onto this once they add Linux support. Is there anything about whether multiple devices will be supported? I would love to use this on my computer and my phone, but paying for two subscriptions for that would be pretty steep, cost-wise.
In the HackerNews thread some people wrote that Mozilla decided to not go with ProtonVPN, because the latter doesn't support Wireguard. I don't know if that's true, obviously
They also had a partnership with
ProtonVPN last year
so maybe they're shopping around providers right now?
In the HackerNews thread some people wrote that Mozilla decided
to not go with ProtonVPN, because the latter doesn't support
Wireguard. I don't know if that's true, obviously
I assume that any true zero-log VPN provider will literally have no way of knowing how many devices are in use by a single account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I assume that any true zero-log VPN provider will literally have no way of knowing how many devices are in use by a single account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I'm guessing they don't log what pages you visit or log when you connected. But during an active connection, I can imagine they keep some state alive that knows which connection has which account.
I'm guessing they don't log what pages you visit or log when you connected. But during an active connection, I can imagine they keep some state alive that knows which connection has which account.
So what exactly is the difference to simply using Mullvad?
Supporting the cause, I guess. People have been talking about Mozilla Co. turning into a service company for years. It's basically the only way for Mozilla Co. to reduce their dependency on Google.
It's a lot easier to market, when backed by Mozilla, than just Mullvad.
That makes a certain amount of sense for Mozilla, but I don't see any actual value for customers.
Marginally cheaper, supports Mozilla
I hear what you're saying and I'm conflicted about it. I want to support the ongoing development of Firefox, but one of the conditions of this service is that you associate your Mullvad subscription with your Firefox Account, which I've purposely avoided creating. The requirement of pinning VPN usage to an additional trackable identity (in an unnecessary middle-man layer between you and the VPN) somewhat contradicts their stated goals of privacy.
A user like yourself, that requires anonimity, is different from one that requires security. If you are looking for anonimity, you will probably go through more hoops to get it and will do research on the providers. Also, losing your account isn't an issue.
For basic users however, the simplest way to a VPN is through an easy to use tool from a trusted party.
Hold up, why are Mozilla launching this as a limited Windows 10 invite-only beta when
There are already a plethora of similarly priced VPNs on the market that take a similar approach towards ensuring user privacy by not logging user activity (Private Internet Access, BTGuard, to name a few.)
Mozilla's technology is based on WireGuard servers provided by Mullvad, who already provide this themselves at a slightly more expensive price point to Mozilla?
Regarding PIA in particular, their recent US$128 million acquisition by a company with a sketchy past is probably leaving a lot of their current customers considering alternatives. Myself included.
They also hired Mark Karpeles as their CTO last year, which is completely insane. Someone famous for getting hacked and fraudulently hiding it from their customers should not be anywhere near a privacy/trust-based company, never mind in one of the top positions.
Wait, WHAT? I missed that... That guy is the last person I want anywhere near my VPN.
I've been using the beta of their Firefox Private Network browser extension which has worked well for me and has been mostly seamless. I find it interesting that they're using two different providers for the two different products: CloudFlare for the extension-level service and Mullvad for the device-level service. They also had a partnership with ProtonVPN last year so maybe they're shopping around providers right now?
I will definitely sign onto this once they add Linux support. Is there anything about whether multiple devices will be supported? I would love to use this on my computer and my phone, but paying for two subscriptions for that would be pretty steep, cost-wise.
In the HackerNews thread some people wrote that Mozilla decided to not go with ProtonVPN, because the latter doesn't support Wireguard. I don't know if that's true, obviously
Ah, I somehow missed that entirely! Thank you. That means I'm definitely in as soon as they support my devices.
I assume that any true zero-log VPN provider will literally have no way of knowing how many devices are in use by a single account? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I'm guessing they don't log what pages you visit or log when you connected. But during an active connection, I can imagine they keep some state alive that knows which connection has which account.
HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21692456.
So I'm going to assume then that this partnership with ProtonVPN is no longer a thing?