# Proxy.sh VPN Provider Sniffed Server Traffic to Catch Hacker



## H_Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2013)

Remember that so praised VPN provider that was advertised here and on LET?

Well, just read http://torrentfreak.com/proxy-sh-vpn-provider-monitored-traffic-to-catch-hacker-130930/

I mean ok a hacker was using it but talking about not logging and then coming up with this is just.... Lies. I bet they are backed by NSA.


----------



## Reece-DM (Oct 1, 2013)

Advertised here & LET? I don't see anything for Proxy.sh

Only VPN.SH 

However privacy don't exist especially with a USA  VPN provider you got more chance of being rammed in the backside by the gov.


----------



## KuJoe (Oct 1, 2013)

I've spoken with a few owners of overseas VPN companies who would do the same thing with a court order. As a company owner, if your options are to protect a criminal or protect your clients I really hope you would chose your clients above all else. What people fail to understand is that your options are to obey the law or not. I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there with tens of thousands of dollars set aside with a team of lawyers at the ready, but for smaller companies like the vast majority of online service providers they would prefer not to declare bankruptcy over a single client who was breaking the law and a lot of clients sleep better at night knowing that.


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Oct 1, 2013)

H_Heisenberg said:


> Remember that so praised VPN provider that was advertised here and on LET?
> 
> Well, just read http://torrentfreak.com/proxy-sh-vpn-provider-monitored-traffic-to-catch-hacker-130930/
> 
> I mean ok a hacker was using it but talking about not logging and then coming up with this is just.... Lies. I bet they are backed by NSA.


First of all, I think the company you're referencing is VPN.sh, and they're not the ones involved with this.

Also, what KuJoe states is correct.  Why would a company go bankrupt over a single customer?  Why should the business be liable for a client's illegal actions?  The liability has to go somewhere.  Going "oops sorry we're not taking the blame and the person you're trying to get is one of several hundreds/thousands of people we have who... we don't release the information to" doesn't really work well in a court of law.  

Also... that last statement...  Really?  This again?  I mean yeah it's something important that needs to be addressed but now this is just a ridiculous accusation based upon your emotional response to this situation.  

I will state this.  Pure anonymity is gone on the internet (or atleast difficult to obtain) and VPNs can only do so much for you.  Sometimes there are situations where ideology and laws collide, but in our current system of government and in today's world we can't relay everything purely on ideology (or so as I believe).


----------



## datarealm (Oct 1, 2013)

Proxy.sh has a publicly accessable terms of service:

https://proxy.sh/panel/knowledgebase/2/Terms-of-service.html

If a user of their network chose to violate the terms of service, they voided their entire contract with proxy.sh.  It seems that proxy.sh did a great job informing the rest of their users that they would be monitoring one node, thus giving them the option to avoid using that node if the monitoring bothered them.


----------



## RiotSecurity (Oct 1, 2013)

KuJoe said:


> I've spoken with a few owners of overseas VPN companies who would do the same thing with a court order. As a company owner, if your options are to protect a criminal or protect your clients I really hope you would chose your clients above all else. What people fail to understand is that your options are to obey the law or not. I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there with tens of thousands of dollars set aside with a team of lawyers at the ready, but for smaller companies like the vast majority of online service providers they would prefer not to declare bankruptcy over a single client who was breaking the law and a lot of clients sleep better at night knowing that.


Well, I suppose it's changed since I ran a VPN.

Last time I owned a VPN service, datacenter ignored all complaints (US company) and my RU company did the same.

Stupid NSA.


----------



## RiotSecurity (Oct 1, 2013)

datarealm said:


> Proxy.sh has a publicly accessable terms of service:
> 
> https://proxy.sh/panel/knowledgebase/2/Terms-of-service.html
> 
> If a user of their network chose to violate the terms of service, they voided their entire contract with proxy.sh.  It seems that proxy.sh did a great job informing the rest of their users that they would be monitoring one node, thus giving them the option to avoid using that node if the monitoring bothered them.


I do enjoy they notified people.

At least they give the heads up they're being spied on, unlike NSA.


----------



## kaniini (Oct 1, 2013)

RiotSecurity said:


> Well, I suppose it's changed since I ran a VPN.
> 
> Last time I owned a VPN service, datacenter ignored all complaints (US company) and my RU company did the same.
> 
> Stupid NSA.


Please let me know what datacenter this is so I can begin working on having them depeered from the net.

Thank you.


----------



## RiotSecurity (Oct 2, 2013)

kaniini said:


> Please let me know what datacenter this is so I can begin working on having them depeered from the net.
> 
> Thank you.


Nice try, not happening.


----------



## hasel92 (Oct 6, 2013)

It's not going bankrupt because of  one customer. lol. That's absurd. 

According to the article "We have been saddened to learn that these actions were harmful to individuals (human beings)."


----------

