Piggybacking off of this, Private Internet Access (PIA) has actually had their no logging policy "proven in court" via this method multiple times. [1][2]

Full disclosure: I work at PIA.

[1]https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-providers-no-logging-claims-tes...

[2]https://torrentfreak.com/private-internet-access-no-logging-...

I wouldn't trust PIA for anything.

The whole company is shrouded in secrecy. After speaking at length with an ex-employee of PIA who now maintains this open-source iOS VPN client:

https://passepartoutvpn.app/

many (most?) employees and contractors at PIA have no idea of the identify of their direct managers.

Imagine working for a company and not knowing your manager's real name. Now imagine trusting that company with your internet traffic.

Disgruntled employees aren't necessarily the least biased sources one can find

Who said he is disgruntled?

Has PIA solved that issue a lot of providers have where services like Google voice recognition just fail to work better than half the time? I presently use AirVPN to bypass my carrier's video streaming limits but barely being able to use Assistant is a pain.

Is there any way to prove that is not NSA, say, and set up to only catch the biggest fish, or to always present parallel construction for criminals caught this way?

Of course you can't prove that, any more than you can't prove that YCombinator or FastMail aren't similar NSA operatives.

That's an interesting philosophical question.[1][2]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

I like you. I tend towards pyrhonism (or maybe I don't!) so I appreciate that response.

Degree of proof is a relative: Maybe a terror organisation use PIA, NSA go fishing for evidence PIA has nothing. Terror org assassinate NSA head. PIA could be a front, but NSA head had to be willing to lose his life to hide the fakery, and terror org wasn't a big enough fish ... more likely you're currently in a coma. Lots of places for false premises to creep in.

Dial it back, is there a point where there'd ever be enough evidence?

Until they introduce some technical measures to provide some degree of anonymity to clients (of the paid service, of all things), all VPN providers should be treated the same way. They share the same business model of making money by selling kindergarten grade technical service and promises of “security” to the same crowd of clueless people by the same methods that include widespread misleading advertising, and now you tell me that some of those are actually freedom warriors.

Essentially, you describe that they provide bulletproof hosting (or network access), and no one does anything to deal with them. Simply because they are a VPN provider. And reply to officials with “Sorry, we have no data”. That's hard to believe.

ExpressVPN also had the same situation and had no logs available.

So a VPN provider needs to do something to get a police investigation, prove they're clean (not logging) and you're good to go.

Unless ... could be First for Business Internet VPN services ... ;o)

If I actually intended to do something illegal over a VPN, then yeah. Not really my style though. I prefer a dedicated, clean laptop, a large antenna, and a public hotspot for my torrenting.

FoxyProxy posted one of their Secret Service subpoenas along with their reply. TLDR; they said they have nothing to give:

https://blog.getfoxyproxy.org/2017/11/04/secret-service-subp...

As for PrivateInternetAccesss / PIA, I would not trust them at all. No one knows who the founders and executives are. After speaking at length with an ex-employee of PIA who now maintains this open-source iOS VPN client,

https://passepartoutvpn.app/

even many (most?) employees and contractors at PIA have no idea of the identify of their direct managers. All work is done remotely and using encrypted chat sessions without video.

PIA is incorporated in British Virgin Islands where apparently shareholders, owners, etc can "enjoy" complete privacy.

I recently had an interview with ExpressVPN and it was a bit different experience. I had a video call with the hiring manager with full disclosure (name/linkedin profile). I investigated the company a little bit - it was registered on the British Virgin Islands as well and no one knows the names of the founders. I didn’t get an offer - they didn’t have a position that would match my skill set - but I was quite okay with that.

So the company is run by people who enjoy privacy? It seems weird to frame that alone as an argument against a company which deals in Virtual PRIVATE Networks.

I thought this would be common sense but I guess not.

It should be a red flag to you that if a founder or executive won’t reveal his identity, there is a possibility those people represent a nation state or other organization (not necessarily governmental) that you would not give your private data to if you knew their identity up-front.

I suppose you have a point. There are plenty of reputable people out there building strong identities on pseudonyms. But if you’re trying to be truly anonymous, as opposed to pseudononymous, and aren’t tying that identity to anything outside of the one enterprise, that could mean you’re putting less on the line with your reputation. Or it could mean that this is just you starting to build an identity, since everyone has to start somewhere. But either case has the same characteristics common with burner identities, so you’d be justified in being skeptical and cautious.