This article is basically summed up: “VPNs don’t completely eliminate your digital footprint, so don’t use them unless you need to accomplish these specific things.”

It seems pretty disingenuous to discourage people from taking steps to protect their privacy in this way. It may not be sponsored, but it’s still bullshit.

This article is such bullshit - every single paragraph is the same “vpn protects you against this but there’s this fringe case where it does not so you don’t need a vpn”. Corbin, you shit the bed on this one.

useless article. mentions dns: zero times.

He is so focused on the client he loses track of why you’d not want your local isp to do anything more than route your vpnd packets.

I most definitely do need a VPN. I’m completely over being subscribed to multiple streaming services and trying to remember/figure out which one has which shows. VPN service is cheaper and everything I want to watch ends up in one place. 🦜🏴‍☠️

Protect your privacy and use a no log VPN. This article is just as much bs as he claims VPN marketing is.

Nice try FBI.

Get fucked.

This article is disingenuous at best and either fueled by ignorance or malice. Another comment suggested it wasn’t officially sponsored, but it still could’ve been bought. Having said, I have to agree with some of the sentiment. I’ve seen advertising on public TV from the likes of NordVPN that is downright fraudulent. Their claims are deceptive and unfounded. Then there’s the recent acquisition of Express and PIA by an old school scammer/spammer. Additionally, many free VPNs are actually surveillance malware and SHOULD be avoided. Any encryption offered publicly by large corporate data-stealing privacy-abusing parasites should be avoided in any form.

For anyone reading this that is hesitant to using VPN because of the article, be encouraged that VPNs are extremely effective at securing your data during transit. They are NOT an outright privacy tool, but can be used as part of your privacy plan. VPNs do NOT make you anonymous! A truthful VPN service provider will say this openly. Like IVPN (Bottom of front page) and Mullvad , both of which attempt to educate customers .

If you’re someone who finds it hard to trust any company whatsoever, then you can host VPN yourself. Admittedly a learning curve to hurdle, but regardless of which method you choose, if your provider is genuine then I see it as a necessity in the effort to keep loved ones safer.

The ol “I had a quota to fill and I hate and/or don’t understand something people like” form of journalism again I see.

Do not understand the downvotes and comments saying article is bullshit. Maybe it all depends on country / ISP, but I have never even thought I need VPN where I live. And since practically all sites indeed use HTTPS all they could get are IPs and possibly hostnames (I do not use ISP DNS).

Have always disliked VPN ads especially when they talk about security benefits. Regular Joe who has no idea about any of this hears those ads and indeed thinks without this magical technology you are now at serious risk your bank details could get stolen by anyone. Not to mention the claims of speed worded in such way that it seems you will get faster network.

Only meaningful reason I can think of privacy wise are these scenarios:

A)

1. You have a static IP and it gets leaked with other info like your real name / personal mail address from site A
2. Only your IP is leaked for site B
3. By cross referencing site A and B info, you can determine identity for site B user

B)

1. You have a static IP and it gets leaked with other info like your real name / personal mail address from site A
2. You visit site B and whoever has logs of that site could tie your actions to your identity by using leaks from site A breach