On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:30:24 +0000, RIB wrote:
> In reply to "m2" who wrote the following:
>
>> That Wikipedia page was not very useful, but they also had a page
>> specific to PureVPN that was much better with details. It is Chinese
>> based. It comes out of Hong Kong! So at least for now, it is okay.
>> It sounds very well respected as a good VPN service. I hope Hong Kong
>> keeps its freedom for a few more years, and $70 for 2 years of service
>> still sounds like a great deal to me. If China does get nasty, my
>> loss would be trivial compared to the Honk Kong'ers.
>>
> That Wikipedia page was not very useful, but they also had a page
> specific to PureVPN that was much better with details. It is Chinese
> based. It comes out of Hong Kong! So at least for now, it is okay.
> It sounds very well respected as a good VPN service. I hope Hong Kong
> keeps its freedom for a few more years, and $70 for 2 years of service
> still sounds like a great deal to me. If China does get nasty, my
> loss would be trivial compared to the Honk Kong'ers.
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purevpn
>
> -----------------------------
>
> I stated that PureVpn was Chinese. What I should have said is it is Chinese
> based working out of Hongkong. That's their head office but their infrastucture
> is world wide. They don't operate within China itself to my knowledge so are
> not a target.
>
> I don't think China will or can shut them down anytime soon.
That makes a difference, although Hong Kong is Chinese again. The UK lease
expired some years ago. Any restrictions put on them by the Chinese Govt.
may only apply to their Hong Kong operations, if and when they do crack down
there too.
|
|