Comment by john_strinlai
21 hours ago
it is a direct response to this disclosure: https://tmctmt.com/posts/mullvad-exit-ips-as-a-fingerprintin... and nothing to do with american politics
21 hours ago
it is a direct response to this disclosure: https://tmctmt.com/posts/mullvad-exit-ips-as-a-fingerprintin... and nothing to do with american politics
And what evidence do you have that this May 14th disclosure has nothing to do with Wyden's March warning? If you remember your history you'll know Wyden tried to shake the Snowden revelations out before the Snowden revelations.
Dismissing Wyden's remarks as "american politics" is near equivalent to dismissing the entire notion of VPN security.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-years-of-obscu...
Mullvad has explicitly given their reasoning. That's the evidence. Now the burden of evidence is on you to show that these things are connected since you are the one challenging Mullvad's claim.
It could be two things at once, and OP was just speculating and trying to add to the conversation.
>Dismissing Wyden's remarks as "american politics"
its a letter signed by american politicians, addressed to an american agency, about american citizens.
no scare quotes are needed around american politics.
(mullvad is swedish)
And would you classify Snowden's revelations the same?
The pattern is "Wyden rings the bell about a dragnet and then we learn the details about it". It just seems like an extraordinary claim with no extraordinary evidence to say that "person warning about VPN compromises has not motivated any of Mullvad's recent security work". Just provide that evidence for your claim.
1 reply →
The burden of proving two events are related is up to the accuser, and rough time correlation isn't any evidence in itself.
You need to give evidence that this has something to do with Wyden's March warning first.