this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
182 points (97.9% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53939 readers
480 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A good VPN won't have any details to hand over that will convict you, even if they wanted to (e.g. mullvad), so they most definitely are enough.
And police are not going after citizens, rights holders are (like they always have been) by suing ISPs in hopes of getting your info.
What in don't like about I2P, is being a node for other peoples traffic.
VPNs log your IP. And Mullvad doesn't allow port-forwarding, which means you can't seed.
Being a node for traffic doesn't mean it can be linked to your identity, because everything is encrypted and metadata is scrambled. TOR node operators take much greater risks because depending on how they have set it up, it can lead to their identity being compromised. It's a small chance but it can happen.
I can't convince you. I only hope that people start seeing the need for it and begin reading the documentation to see its strengths
I use Mulvad, and seeding seems to work for me. Am I missing something?
You can only seed to people who have ports open. At least one side of the connection needs to be reachable.
It's people like me who keep ports available that are able to seed to you.
That shouldn't be possible in theory unless I don't know it well enough. Care to provide a screenshot?
But they don't log the data going through. The IP alone will not be enough for a conviction at all. They also need to prove that you acquired/shared copyrighted content. Any proper VPN isn't going to log that.
No, I'm not at all interested in that either. I don't want to risk any nefarious traffic that I have no control over running through my network.
I get the appeal of I2P for torrenting and I can absolutely see the value it can bring. But as long as I will have to be a node for other random peoples traffic, I'll pass.
I feel as though this take is fully fud. It sounds like a take that came from seeing tons of advertisements for vpns without really understanding how they work. Maybe I'm wrong about you. That said, in general, a VPN is not a great cloak for piracy.
If there was a completely zero percent risk that I would be used as a node for something truly horrible, I also wouldn't mind. But I'd rather torrent with a slightly elevated risk rather than enabling things that should not be enabled. By torrenting with a VPN, at least I have the control over what happens on my network and exactly what data I'm part of sharing.
there is 0% risk until your country makes a law that prohibits any and all P2P communication. That would not only break torrents, but would thwart signal/telegram/whatsapp calls too, Jitsi meetings, probably google meet and zoom too, as all those use P2P traffic for performance.
So far there are only such laws in far east countries, and the official java I2P router is smart enough to not participate in routing when you are in such a place.
Also, I think for routing to work you need to open a port, without it that won't be done.