> Technically they could have been logging your traffic
Of course they “could have” but their entire business depends on them not doing it.
Of course they “could have” but their entire business depends on them not doing it.
Rättegångsbalken does have a provision that a prosecutor can order you to preserve information you already have saved for a maximum of 180 days (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K27P16S1). I can't find anything about what the punishment for ignoring such an order would be, but to say a company could be forced to keep operating seems extraordinarily unfounded.
Given Mullvad I think they'd rather shut down.
“Entirely” possible? Sure, I guess it’s “entirely” possible that the NSA is actually controlled by a reptilian, illuminati cabal of extraterrestrials, while we’re just making stuff up without any factual basis whatsoever.
And furthermore, I am sure you know that when dealing with matters of security, it pays to exercise precaution and be wary of scenarios you cannot prove to be happening at the moment. E.g., you don't know your new friend you met at the bus stop is secret police, an informant for the Vichy government, but until you're damn sure he isn't then you don't let him know the location of your resistance safehouse. You don't need to have proof that your new friend has done anything wrong to be cautious of that possibility.
It's not very likely though.
If you can't even remember things in the medium term that's a level beyond "trapped in a dream" that's much more hopeless.
So, with that assumption, you make a computer solve a problem that's impossible for a human to work through in a practical amount of time. And then you verify it got the right answer. This proves the math wasn't done by your dreaming brain. (At least it proves it to a pretty good certainty, and you can repeat the test.)
Many NP-complete problems are good candidates here for slow solutions and fast verifications.
Also for situations that have the standard dream level of fidelity, you can try basic reality checks like putting your finger through your hand or more conspicuously spinning along your own axis.
I thought this was just me! There have been times when I've "read" in dreams (signs, usually), but I don't actually visualize the words. I just "know" what they say.
I would even say "highly unlikely". I revisited how I understand "unlikely" after reading this:
> Radioactive capsule that fell off truck found in Australia... Radiation Services WA general manager Lauren Steen describing it as a "highly unlikely" scenario.
Service might not collect data but they could be forced with warrant to start doing so for specific entities.
This has happened in Finland, for example.
also their business definitely doesn't depend on being honest or standing for their values. there are plenty of vpn's who run on fake marketing that give the impression that they have certain values and do certain things while actually not doing it and they are way more successful than mullvad.
Yes, but Mullvad also doesn’t whore themselves out to any YouTuber that will accept a sponsorship agreement. I’ve never seen an ad for them. I’ve only heard of them from people who tell me they’re the best.
Of course we shouldn’t trust them 100%. Trust isn’t required them competent OpSec is implemented within a workflow. Trust is a vulnerability.
The idea that folk are keeping passwords in some cloud management portal owned by some company boggles my mind. But this is a very controversial opinion and offends many.
You don't have to trust password managers if you don't want to, but if you want others to accept your reasoning as to why, you'll have to convince them using an argument that actually applies.
This does not render the model of keeping the master password client side only moot, it is more secure no matter what. You successfully mitigate the read-only attack of dumping the storage of the cloud provider. However, if you assume a full, on-going compromise of the infrastructure, your password is not secure anymore.
I get that this is moving the goal posts a bit but I wanted to post this anyway. I think if you have highly valuable credentials and want the maximum security for them, you should play out as many possible attack vectors as possible.
But I think this is not fully deployed.
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2022/1/12/diskless-infrastructur...
There are parallels to the now-defunct Crypto AG. Impeccable reputation, but no way of independently verifying it it did what it said on the can. It took decades for the truth about its links to the CIA to come out.
... in a way that you, as a customer, can detect.
1. You can't have any hard guarantees about what information is retained by third parties about you.
2. As other comments here have pointed out, something smells a bit weird with this.
If you're interested in hiding from civil snoops (RIAA, MPAA), by all means, use one. If you're interested in hiding from a government, then by all means, keep rolling the honeypot dice.