iVPN.net: Safe surfing with a VPN

iVPN.net, a VPN service provider, offered me a free six-month subscription as an incentive to try their service and post a review.  Aside from the free subscription, I figured it was a good way to learn about VPNs, so I took them up on the offer.  Here's my review, based upon one day of using iVPN.net.

A VPN is a virtual private network, connecting two or more locations on the Internet to one another. It's private in that all traffic within the VPN is encrypted, making it extremely difficult for anyone else to access the data. It's virtual because the communications take place using the public Internet rather than over an actual private network.

If you set up an account with a VPN service like iVPN.net, you can use it to connect to websites or do just about anything else on the Internet without disclosing your actual location. Normally your IP address is visible to websites that you connect to, and from that they can often pinpoint your physical location and determine other information about you. (For a quick example, take a look at What Is My IP Address? or InfoSniper.) When you go through a VPN, however, only the IP address of the VPN is visible. (Of course, there are many other ways that websites can get information about you. The privacy or incognito mode on your web browser can conceal some but not all of this information.)

Why would you use a VPN service? There are many reasons; here are just a few:

• You want websites to think you are in a different country. For example, you may be trying to order something or view content that is only available to users in certain countries. Using a VPN that makes it appear as if you are somewhere else may circumvent country restrictions. iVPN.net has servers in several different countries.
• You want to protect the privacy and security of your communications. This is especially important when you are traveling or using a public wifi hotspot, since it's often very easy for others to eavesdrop on your communications. Using a VPN will encrypt data between you and the VPN, but it doesn't have much effect on the other side of the VPN, so it's still important to pay attention to other security functions, such as using https rather than http to access websites securely.
• You don't completely trust your regular Internet service provider. Your ISP can access all of your communications, but if you use a VPN, all it will see is the encrypted data. So if your ISP (or school, employer, etc.) tries to block certain websites such as Facebook, using a VPN should circumvent that, since all the ISP will see is your encrypted connection to the VPN. (That's why Pakistan recently banned the use of VPNs.) Of course, you'll need to trust the VPN, since it will have access to your communications. This may well be an issue; many VPN services are located in other countries for legal reasons. iVPN.net says it is located in Malta, and claims that it does not monitor or store logs of any user activity. I can't vouch for iVPN.net personally, but as far as I can tell it is legit, and I haven't yet seen any red flags.
• You don't trust sites that you may be connecting to. For example, if you use BitTorrent to download or distribute files, any nodes that you connect to will see your IP address, and in some cases may complain to your ISP, claiming that they own the copyright in one of the files. Many ISPs will send warning notices to subscribers threatening to cut off service rather than checking whether there is any merit to the claim. Concealing your IP address avoids this issue. Note that there are perfectly legitimate uses of BitTorrent, just as there are for VPNs. iVPN.net allows BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer services, but says it does not support using these services to transfer copyright material.
• It's not very difficult to use a VPN service, and most providers will give you simple instructions to follow. There are three common encryption protocols you can use when connecting to a VPN (PPTP, L2TP/IPSec, and OpenVPN); many providers give you a choice. iVPN.net has a table that explains the differences.

There are some potential disadvantages to consider:

• As mentioned above, you'll need to trust the VPN service provider, just as you need to trust your regular Internet service provider when you aren't using a VPN.
• Using a VPN can slow down your Internet access, especially if you are accessing a VPN that is far away. Many factors affect the speed you will get, including the location of the VPN server and the protocol that you use to connect. With iVPN.net, my connection slowed from about 14 Mbps to 1 Mbps when I used L2TP/IPSec, but came back up to about 8 Mbps when I switched to OpenVPN. (By way of comparison, I tested a different VPN service which supports only the less secure PPTP, and got about 7 Mbps.)
• In most cases you'll have to pay a monthly or annual fee for a VPN service. iVPN.net charges $15/month or $100/year. That seems to be toward the higher end of the spectrum, but watch out for restrictions on other services; they don't all offer the same features, and some limit the amount of data you can send and receive. (I found these comparison tables helpful: VPN Service Providers; VPN Reviews.)

Sue 'em all!

The list of defendants in this case is interesting: George W. Bush, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Viacom, AT&T, T-Mobile, Skype, AOL, Hotmail, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and two more pages worth (including NSA, CIA, FBI, AIA, Pentagon, the State of Louisiana, and the Pope).

But why isn't President Obama on the list? Perhaps the plaintiff is concerned that the litigation would be delayed if she named a sitting president as a defendant.

Thomas v Bush Complaint

Microsoft outbids Google

Microsoft has just launched Office 365, a cloud-based suite of applications (email, calendar, word processor, spreadsheet, etc.). As far as I can tell, it looks a lot like the services that Google has been offering for several years (as Gmail and Google Docs). The main difference seems to be the price: FREE from Google, or $6 per user per month for Microsoft's Office 365. Nice try, Microsoft, but I'll stick with Google for now, thank you very much. (When Microsoft starts offering a free version of Office 365 for individuals, we'll talk -- but I suspect they'll think twice before doing that, for fear of cannibalizing sales of their Office software.)

Thanks, Governor Quinn!

I received this email from Amazon today:

Hello,

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of Illinois residents. Unfortunately, a new state tax law signed by Governor Quinn compels us to terminate this program for Illinois-based participants. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers - including but not limited to those referred by Illinois-based affiliates like you - even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.

We had opposed this new tax law because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive.  It was supported by national retailing chains, most of which are based outside Illinois, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue.  We deeply regret that its enactment forces this action.

As a result of the new law, contracts with all Illinois affiliates of the Amazon Associates Program will be terminated and those Illinois residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com [ http://www.amazon.com/ ], Endless.com [ http://www.endless.com/ ], or SmallParts.com [ http://www.smallparts.com/ ]. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to April 15, 2011 will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.  Based on your account closure date of April 15, 2011, any final payments will be paid by July 1, 2011.

You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of Illinois. If you are not currently a permanent resident of Illinois, or if you are relocating to another state in the near future, you can manage the details of your Associates account here [ https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/network/your-account/payee-info.html ]. And if you relocate to another state after April 15, please contact us [ https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/contact?subject=&ie=UTF8 ] for reinstatement into the Amazon Associates Program.

To be clear, this development will only impact our ability to continue the Associates Program in Illinois, and will not affect the ability of Illinois residents to purchase online at www.amazon.com [ http://www.amazon.com/ ] from Amazon s retail business.

We have enjoyed working with you and other Illinois-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program and, if this situation is rectified, would very much welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to Illinois residents.

Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

Your Statue of Limitations Is Up

Some practice tips:

• A piece of legislation is a "statute," not a "statue." (See document below, page 3.)
• The principal is your pal. So is the original amount of a debt. That's an important principle. (Page 6.)
• Microsoft Word's spellchecker notwithstanding, tortfeasors usually act "tortiously" rather than "tortuously." (Page 5.)
• Be careful with punctuation, as it can change the meaning of a sentence. "Wrong bitches" means something entirely different from "Wrong, bitches"; and "Sorry bitches" means something different from "Sorry, bitches." (Pages 3 & 4.)
• It tends to be counterproductive to refer to "ass clown judges" or "this goddamn piece of shit" in a petition for rehearing. (Pages 2, 4-6.)

Petition for Rehearing

(Hat tip: Lowering The Bar via The Volokh Conspiracy.)

Hulk smash trademark infringement!

Puny power tool manufacturer, don't make Hulk angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.

THR, Esq., the Hollywood Reporter's entertainment law blog, reports that Marvel has sued a manufacturer that is using the name Hulk as a brand name for air compressors. Airbase Industries applied last year to register HULK as its own trademark for power and hand tools (USPTO serial number 77757650); Marvel has opposed that application. Marvel has now filed suit against Airbase in federal court, alleging trademark infringement and various other claims.

MVL Rights v. Airbase Industries - Complaint

Minnesota vs. National Arbitration Forum

The National Arbitration Forum and the Attorney General of Minnesota have reached an agreement under which NAF will cease accepting new arbitration cases involving consumers, including collection actions by credit card companies. The consent decree (dated July 17, 2009) does not apply to ICANN domain name disputes nor to certain other types of arbitration matters currently administered by NAF.

See also the AG's press release, her earlier complaint against NAF, and NAF's statement on the settlement.

The Attorney General has also asked the American Arbitration Association to exit the consumer arbitration field. (Another company, JAMS, also offers consumer arbitration services, but apparently has not been approached by the AG.)

Update, 7/22/09:  The American Arbitration Association says it will stop handling consumer debt collection cases "until some standards or safeguards are established." Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2009, page A1 (full text of story here). See also Deepak Gupta's take in CL&P Blog.

Kentucky's Internet gamble

Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky is seeking to seize more than one hundred gambling-related domain names. A judge initially rejected the governor's bid and has scheduled a hearing for October 7. See coverage in the Louisville Courier-Journal, DomainNews, and The Iconoclast.

John Levine's take on the issue sounds right to me. I doubt very much that Kentucky has adequate grounds for jurisdiction over the domain names, the registrants, the registrars, or the registries. Any registrar that voluntarily forfeits a domain name on behalf of a registrant is likely asking to be sued.

Gimme an "A"!

As anyone who has flown Southwest Airlines well knows, Southwest doesn't assign seats in advance. Instead, you are assigned a boarding priority when you check in at the airport or online, up to 24 hours before the flight. At the gate, you line up with others in your boarding group, and then when your group is called, you stampede onto the plane looking for anything other than a middle seat. (And if you're one of those rude jerks who max out the carry-on allowance rather than checking your bags like the rest of us, you spend several minutes blocking the aisle so you can stake a claim to space in the overhead compartment and then try to jam your oversized baggage there rather than placing it under the seat where it belongs. But enough on that rant.)

Since you can't reserve a seat ahead of time, getting an "A" boarding pass turns out to be critical. If you wait until you arrive at the airport to check in, you'll almost certainly be stuck with a "B" or even a "C", and even if you wait more than an hour at the front of the line for your particular boarding group, you still risk getting stuck with an aisle seat. In some instances, you apparently have to check in within the first few minutes (i.e., exactly 24 hours before your flight time) in order to get an "A" boarding pass.

BoardFirst and similar services have seemingly found a way around this ridiculous situation. (Yes, I realize that some people actually like Southwest's dysfunctional approach; I think it's just because they've figured out how to beat it, kind of like how ticket brokers who have figured out how to get good concert tickets from Ticketmaster don't think that system is broken.) If you're willing to trust BoardFirst with your Southwest flight information, BoardFirst will log on to Southwest's website when check-in opens and put you near the front of the line for an "A" boarding pass. BoardFirst charges $5 for this service.

Southwest sued BoardFirst last year based upon a variety of legal theories, including a claim that BoardFirst enters into a browsewrap contract with Southwest each time it accesses Southwest's website on a customer's behalf, and that contract prohibits third parties such as BoardFirst from checking customers in or obtaining boarding passes for them. This month the court ruled in Southwest's favor on that claim, although from a quick look at BoardFirst's website, it appears that BoardFirst may still be accepting "orders" from Southwest customers.

Southwest Airlines Co. v. BoardFirst, L.L.C., No. 3:06-cv-00891 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2007).

R.I.P.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell died today. I met him once, in 1986 or so, when he came to my law school to give a talk. While I disagreed (and still do) with most of what he stood for politically, I enjoyed talking with him then and have always had a great deal of respect for him.

A few years ago I served on a dispute resolution panel that awarded the domain name fallwell.com to Dr. Falwell. I dissented from that decision, and later felt vindicated by the Fourth Circuit's subsequent ruling [PDF].