2026-04-04 16:50 UTC
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't as precise as I could've been. I was really just trying to convey the motivations (i.e. that it was due to being mistaken for foreign as opposed to being targeted for using a VPN), not go into the details of exactly which aspect of the VPN (the entrance IP geolocation, the exit IP geolocation, or the company HQ location) would actually trigger the "foreign-ness."
Replies (1)
-
@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2026-04-04 17:15
I mean, even a US-based VPN company could look foreign if they have servers outside the US, or even if they just allow multi-hop to third-party servers to/from outside the US. Except then they're even more vulnerable not only to subpoenas but also extrajudicial and unconstitutional raids, as [some journalists](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/small-town-kansas-newspaper-granted-3-million-apology-over-police-raid-2025-11-12/) have [discovered](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/14/fbi-raid-washington-post-hannah-natanson), especially in deeply red states but not always...