Logical fallacies are mistakes in logic. The appeal to authority fallacy is when you say something of the form "X is true because authority Y says so". I don't see how supporting warrants falls into that. What statement do you think is being fallaciously supported here, and which authority is being used to support it?

>I also think that explicitly not keeping logs to protect users from law enforcement is shady to say the least. If law enforcement has a valid warrant, I don't have an issue with providing them with the data they need to find and prosecute.

That statement. That because it's an authority they will be just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's best interest. That op has no problem with it because surely no one would ever abuse that power! That's a logical failure if you don't have your head in the sand.

But, I'm sure it makes no sense if you've been raised to believe the "government is here to help".

I agree with everything you've said, but it's still not an "appeal to authority" argument.

For example: "You should vote Joe for Sheriff because my uncle--who is a private detective and knows these things--says to."

That said, logical fallacy discussions are irrelevant to your actual point: Keeping logs implies you trust the government entirely. Not keeping logs implies you trust your users entirely. Neither option is healthy for the other in and of themselves and requires "everyone else" (aka civilization) to be doing their jobs to stop bad guys and/or governments.

Tricky stuff.

His argument is literally "it's ok because they are an authority."

> Not keeping logs implies you trust your users entirely.

No. It means your business is to provide a proxy service, and not to monitor what users do with it. Trust has nothing to do with anything.

It's a special type of ignorance to say, "well, governments won't overreach, they're here to help" if you've been alive before and after 9/11.

I am inclined to agree, but this isn't an example of appeal to authority[1] it's just a willingness to believe in the status quo ("police should always be able to catch the bad guys, shouldn't they?").

1: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...

"I don't have an issue with obeying a valid warrant" does not imply that the government is always "just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's interest." I would strongly disagree with the latter while agreeing with the former.

It implies that either:

1) You're capable of discerning what is, or is not, a valid warrant, or

2) You trust the L.E. to do so for you.

Which?

These are not exhaustive options. The name of the logical fallacy you're committing here is a "false dilemma". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I cannot discern what is or is not a valid warrant. That's why companies have lawyers. I don't trust law enforcement to do this either. That's why we have courts. There's a lot of room for nuanced opinions about our warrant system not being perfect but being better than nothing.

"You" implies your organization. You and your corporate attorneys are on the same team.

No logical fallacy, simply a strict reading of the words chosen.

Correction made, what's the third option, if those aren't exhaustive?

One other option is that I trust the courts. Another is that I don't trust law enforcement or the courts but I still think that an imperfect rule of law is better than not being able to have warrants at all. These things don't have to be absolute.

I said "valid warrant." If I found the warrant to be an over-reach, was on a flimsy pretext, or the request is not properly scoped I wouldn't consider that valid, and would appeal.

"Your appeal has been denied."

You're still considering a just and fair government/system, you've just moved the "just and fair" bit from "the police" to "the judge issuing the warrant". There are a fair number of people who have absolutely no trust in their (or any) government and consider the potential for government overreach. The best way to prevent government overreach is to make sure there is nothing they can reach for.

Some people have no issue with the government knowing their "harmless personal activities". While another group of some people believe the government has absolutely no right to know what's going on in their personal lives no matter how mundane.

But they'd also take themselves out of a situation where non-corrupt authorities could use their power appropriately. You have to do the ethical math on the likelihood of either possibility and the consequences, which is subjective.

>But they'd also take themselves out of a situation where non-corrupt authorities could use their power appropriately.

Oh, well, if we're limiting the conversation to hypotheticals...

How about the idea that your bad behavior doesn't forfeit my right to privacy? I don't care if every other VPN user starts money laundry drug money by selling child porn - when it comes to my VPN logs, you can get lost, and I do nothing unusual or illegal. I have a very American attitude about personal freedoms and privacy.

I don't believe that every opportunity for data collection should be implemented just because an authority says it's for "the greater good".

> I don't care if every other VPN user starts money laundry drug money by selling child porn ...

If I require a valid warrant for a carefully scoped query, law enforcement would have to have probable cause, demonstrate that in a court, and get approval from a judge. Note the "carefully scoped" part: they can ask "who was using this IP address at this time to visit this site" but they don't get unlimited access to the logs data. The only way they would be able to get data about you is with probable cause that you are doing something illegal. Even if everyone else using that service is using it for illegal things, that does not constitute probable cause for them to get your data.

> I don't believe that every opportunity for data collection should be implemented just because an authority says it's for "the greater good".

I agree.

Don't advertise with "no logs" then.

I completely agree, and said so in my original comment.

The parent explicitly said that would be unethical, so you agree with them.