As a linux user you should know that all VPN companies are as trustworthy as a chronic liar, and therefore not rely on one. So it doesn’t matter that they don’t support Arch, really. And even good that they don’t support Tails.
A VPN introduces a new party who can harvest your data. It doesn’t avoid IP tracking, it just shifts it from your ISP to another entity.
You have to trust that your VPN provider’s claims of no logging/tracking are accurate, you can usually get fairly confident with research but it’s never 100%.
Edit: to clarify, I’m not trying to dissuade VPN use. It’s a still a great choice.
I hear I2P had a lot of potential, but also a lot of issues. Haven’t checked up on that project in a bit. I know it was a BITCH to set up when I tried plinking with it some years ago.
So TOR (despite the latency/speed issues and its own security concerns) is still probably about as good as it gets.
Kinda get the vibe that guy I’m replying to is asking for the times when its actually needed. If I’ve got the wrong mark there and they’re looking for daily driving, then Mullvad VPN (or comparable) is probably the better way to go.
Yeah, Mullvad seems to have done the most to prove that they’re not harvesting your data. You still have to trust them, but there’s evidence that they’re trying.
Yea, i2p is slightly more involved than just starting up tor browser, but its not that bad. The real problem for this case is that it doesnt have exit nodes built into the protocol, so getting to the internet is a bit harder.
As a linux user you should know that all VPN companies are as trustworthy as a chronic liar, and therefore not rely on one. So it doesn’t matter that they don’t support Arch, really. And even good that they don’t support Tails.
Mullvad is pretty good
deleted by creator
A VPN introduces a new party who can harvest your data. It doesn’t avoid IP tracking, it just shifts it from your ISP to another entity.
You have to trust that your VPN provider’s claims of no logging/tracking are accurate, you can usually get fairly confident with research but it’s never 100%.
Edit: to clarify, I’m not trying to dissuade VPN use. It’s a still a great choice.
You’re only shifting the tracking from your ISP and the target server to the VPN company, which is just as likely to talk.
deleted by creator
Arch users, by definition, roll their own Wireguard networks
K so what should I be doing instead
Probably TOR.
I hear I2P had a lot of potential, but also a lot of issues. Haven’t checked up on that project in a bit. I know it was a BITCH to set up when I tried plinking with it some years ago.
So TOR (despite the latency/speed issues and its own security concerns) is still probably about as good as it gets.
deleted by creator
Completely agree.
Kinda get the vibe that guy I’m replying to is asking for the times when its actually needed. If I’ve got the wrong mark there and they’re looking for daily driving, then Mullvad VPN (or comparable) is probably the better way to go.
Yeah, Mullvad seems to have done the most to prove that they’re not harvesting your data. You still have to trust them, but there’s evidence that they’re trying.
Yea, i2p is slightly more involved than just starting up tor browser, but its not that bad. The real problem for this case is that it doesnt have exit nodes built into the protocol, so getting to the internet is a bit harder.
For most people, using https and dns over https (DoH) is probably all that’s needed.
Just use mullvad