1) cryptostorm would still have the ip the isp assigned a user. mapping this ip to a real name is trivial. right?
2) The cryptostorm team decided to remain 'pseudoanonymous' at this point. The points they outline (privacy activists get constantly hassled and threatened) make sense but don't help me verify the integrity of the service. You saying that you spoke to them and that they are trustful doesn't do much either. Why should i trust them? I know in the end i should trust no one, but your argument boils down to cryptostorm being outside of FRA jurisdiction?
You could argue that iPredator is not a real crypto/security vpn service in the first place. I think they are using 128bit encryption which can be cracked if enough effort is put into it. They are just making it more difficult, eliminating 'drive by snooping'.
Lastly: no offense, but that website is not very trust-inducing. i know it shouldnt matter but still....
1) cryptostorm would still have the ip the isp assigned a user. mapping this ip to a real name is trivial. right?
2) The cryptostorm team decided to remain 'pseudoanonymous' at this point. The points they outline (privacy activists get constantly hassled and threatened) make sense but don't help me verify the integrity of the service. You saying that you spoke to them and that they are trustful doesn't do much either. Why should i trust them? I know in the end i should trust no one, but your argument boils down to cryptostorm being outside of FRA jurisdiction?
You could argue that iPredator is not a real crypto/security vpn service in the first place. I think they are using 128bit encryption which can be cracked if enough effort is put into it. They are just making it more difficult, eliminating 'drive by snooping'.
Lastly: no offense, but that website is not very trust-inducing. i know it shouldnt matter but still....