Friday 25 December 2015
Friday 17 April 2015
How to Anonymize Torrenting? ExtraTorrent's Best Choice - Trust.Zone VPN
Do you know that BitTorrent and anonymity are not the same things?
If you use BitTorrent, you absolutely need to hide your identity and data. If you really want to keep your activity and downloads private, your best way involves routing your BitTorrent connection through secure internet connection.
The best way to provide you with secure and encrypted connection which hides your traffic from your ISP and government agencies is a VPN or Virtual Private Network service.
ExtraTorrent is happy to recommend Trust.Zone VPN service to create the best tool to protect your torrenting.
Trust.Zone VPN is a special tool to make you invisible while using BitTorrent or downloading any files. It hides your IP address, protects your identity and data. You will stay 100% anonymous with Trust.Zone
How Trust.Zone VPN works?
- It creates a secure tunnel between you and website (for example, torrent tracker)
- The tunnel is secure and 100% encrypted.
- Your IP address is hidden while you are browsing over the web. Your IP address is replaced by Trust.Zone VPN server ip address
- You are able to surf the web anonymously.
- Nobody can track you traffic. Download torrents, stream video and music, watch TV shows without getting caught
- ISP cannot track your activity
- Access geo-restricted content – watch country restricted YouTube video, watch BBC iPlayer, Hulu, Netflix and etc.
- Use VOIP Applications like Skype and Viber with no restrictions
- Unlimited speed and unlimited bandwidth.
- No logging
- Many VPN servers over the world.
- Available on all platforms - Windows, iOS, Android and more
- The full support of p2p, file sharing and BitTorrent
- You can use 3 VPN connections at the same time – from laptop, from home and from your office
- BitCoin accepted
ExtraTorrent reached an agreement with Trust.Zone VPN – every member of ExtraTorrent can use Trust.Zone totally for free for next 3 days. Enjoy!
ExtraTorrent warns: Protect yourself while Torrenting – Use Trust.Zone VPN
DISCUSS ON FORUM
If you use BitTorrent, you absolutely need to hide your identity and data. If you really want to keep your activity and downloads private, your best way involves routing your BitTorrent connection through secure internet connection.
The best way to provide you with secure and encrypted connection which hides your traffic from your ISP and government agencies is a VPN or Virtual Private Network service.
ExtraTorrent is happy to recommend Trust.Zone VPN service to create the best tool to protect your torrenting.
Trust.Zone VPN is a special tool to make you invisible while using BitTorrent or downloading any files. It hides your IP address, protects your identity and data. You will stay 100% anonymous with Trust.Zone
How Trust.Zone VPN works?
- It creates a secure tunnel between you and website (for example, torrent tracker)
- The tunnel is secure and 100% encrypted.
- Your IP address is hidden while you are browsing over the web. Your IP address is replaced by Trust.Zone VPN server ip address
- You are able to surf the web anonymously.
- Nobody can track you traffic. Download torrents, stream video and music, watch TV shows without getting caught
- ISP cannot track your activity
- Access geo-restricted content – watch country restricted YouTube video, watch BBC iPlayer, Hulu, Netflix and etc.
- Use VOIP Applications like Skype and Viber with no restrictions
- Unlimited speed and unlimited bandwidth.
- No logging
- Many VPN servers over the world.
- Available on all platforms - Windows, iOS, Android and more
- The full support of p2p, file sharing and BitTorrent
- You can use 3 VPN connections at the same time – from laptop, from home and from your office
- BitCoin accepted
ExtraTorrent reached an agreement with Trust.Zone VPN – every member of ExtraTorrent can use Trust.Zone totally for free for next 3 days. Enjoy!
ExtraTorrent warns: Protect yourself while Torrenting – Use Trust.Zone VPN
DISCUSS ON FORUM
Tech Giants Shift Revenues from Australia
Google, Microsoft and Apple have all defended corporate structures that provided for shifting most of the taxable revenue to offshore jurisdictions. News Corp Australia asked senators to impose a goods and services tax on its competitor Netflix. In response, the largest tech firms in the world had to defend themselves and their tax schemes. Google’s branch in Australia and New Zealand refused to disclose its Australian revenues, but revealed that in 2013 the company had paid $7.1m in tax on $46m in profits. However, most of its local revenue was taxed in Singapore, as the Australian branch of the company provides sales and marketing services to Singapore branch.
Microsoft revealed that last year the company had also shifted about $2bn to Singapore in revenue from Australia, declaring only $100m in the country, over the same reason – the company explained that products and services are sold to Australia by Microsoft’s Singapore group, with sales staff being located in Singapore, and Microsoft’s clients being billed by the Singapore branch as well.
Finally, Apple confirmed it had paid about $80m in income tax in Australia – from revenue of more than $6bn. However, Apple doesn’t agree that this amounts to aggressive tax planning.
The tax office is auditing the three companies at the moment, and this is no surprise – they couldn’t expect Australia to like being not paid taxes, could they? In the meantime, the local authorities suggested a so-called “Google tax” in the budget to require multinationals to pay a higher rate. In response, Google suggested that Australian tax breaks for research and development should be spent in smaller start-ups instead of such giants as Google and its fellows.
Microsoft revealed that last year the company had also shifted about $2bn to Singapore in revenue from Australia, declaring only $100m in the country, over the same reason – the company explained that products and services are sold to Australia by Microsoft’s Singapore group, with sales staff being located in Singapore, and Microsoft’s clients being billed by the Singapore branch as well.
Finally, Apple confirmed it had paid about $80m in income tax in Australia – from revenue of more than $6bn. However, Apple doesn’t agree that this amounts to aggressive tax planning.
The tax office is auditing the three companies at the moment, and this is no surprise – they couldn’t expect Australia to like being not paid taxes, could they? In the meantime, the local authorities suggested a so-called “Google tax” in the budget to require multinationals to pay a higher rate. In response, Google suggested that Australian tax breaks for research and development should be spent in smaller start-ups instead of such giants as Google and its fellows.
DEA Accused of Collection of Phone Records
Human rights groups are ready to file a federal lawsuit over the mass collection of US phone records – this time, against the Drug Enforcement Agency. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court demanding to stop the DEA from collecting records of people’s international calls without a warrant.
Data collecting program lasted for 20 years and became a template for the NSA’s mass surveillance of US phone data after 9/11. Despite the fact that the US officials claimed that the DEA was not collecting information anymore, the news that the agency collected phone records in the so-called “war on drugs” inspired new questions.
EFF alleged that the mass surveillance puts the work of privacy outfits in jeopardy. For instance, Human Rights Watch works with people who can be in life-or-death situations and speaking out can make them a target. This is why the lawsuit claims that the US government is secretly stretching its surveillance authorities to the breaking point.
It turned out that a number of US presidents secretly allowed the Drug Enforcement Agency to monitor and store phone data that included almost all telephone calls from the United States linked to drug trafficking. Since 1992, the so-called “USTO” program ran without judicial approval, although this was required by the US constitution.
By the way, it seems that the warrantless mass phone records collection has failed to stop the growth of domestic drugs consumption. For example, in 2012, 9.2 % of Americans had consumed narcotics in the past month, up from 8.3% in 2002 – this is despite the efforts of the US, which spends billions on drug eradication abroad –more than $9bn was spent in Colombia and $7.5bn in Afghanistan.
Data collecting program lasted for 20 years and became a template for the NSA’s mass surveillance of US phone data after 9/11. Despite the fact that the US officials claimed that the DEA was not collecting information anymore, the news that the agency collected phone records in the so-called “war on drugs” inspired new questions.
EFF alleged that the mass surveillance puts the work of privacy outfits in jeopardy. For instance, Human Rights Watch works with people who can be in life-or-death situations and speaking out can make them a target. This is why the lawsuit claims that the US government is secretly stretching its surveillance authorities to the breaking point.
It turned out that a number of US presidents secretly allowed the Drug Enforcement Agency to monitor and store phone data that included almost all telephone calls from the United States linked to drug trafficking. Since 1992, the so-called “USTO” program ran without judicial approval, although this was required by the US constitution.
By the way, it seems that the warrantless mass phone records collection has failed to stop the growth of domestic drugs consumption. For example, in 2012, 9.2 % of Americans had consumed narcotics in the past month, up from 8.3% in 2002 – this is despite the efforts of the US, which spends billions on drug eradication abroad –more than $9bn was spent in Colombia and $7.5bn in Afghanistan.
Australian Court Determines Level of Fines in Piracy Case
A local court is going to assess how the copyright owners deal with people pirating Dallas Buyers Club due to fears that they were trolling alleged pirates to extort settlements.
In the case launched by Voltage Pictures, the court delivered a landmark ruling a few days ago, according to which a number of Australia’s largest ISPs were forced to reveal personal details of over 4,700 users suspected of sharing the Oscar-winning movie online via BitTorrent and other services.
But this is not an unconditional victory: an Australian justice will decide how much money the movie studio can demand from the suspects. The court required the plaintiffs to submit a draft of a letter they are going to send to identified file-sharers. Another stipulation of the court decision was that the identities of the Internet subscriber remain confidential.
A few months ago, the largest broadband providers in the country refused to hand over personal details, calling previous requests of Voltage Pictures “speculative invoicing” ahead of the lawsuit. The ISPs claimed that the copyright owners were using discovery letters to threaten Internet users into making settlements.
In the meantime, Voltage Pictures is known as a smaller, independent movie company, with its recent releases including Don Jon, Killer Joe and Thanks for Sharing. The company has also aggressively pursued copyright infringement cases in the United States and Denmark.
In the United States, with the help of the US Internet service providers, the company obtained names and IP addresses of people who had illegally downloaded the movie and filed suit against them threatening with a fine of up to $150,000. Suspected pirates have usually settled out of court for around $5,000.
Entertainment industry has responded forcefully to the increase in digital piracy, but many copyright owners simply ask the broadband providers to forward their users a written warning. However, some adult content distributors including the Io Group have aggressively pursued the lawsuit strategy with great success – they even provided convenient PayPal and credit card options in those threatening “notification” letters.
In other countries – for example, Canada, – ISPs have chosen to throttle P2P traffic – in other words, they slowed down the Internet connections of people using the Internet to access potentially illegal files via P2P services.
In the case launched by Voltage Pictures, the court delivered a landmark ruling a few days ago, according to which a number of Australia’s largest ISPs were forced to reveal personal details of over 4,700 users suspected of sharing the Oscar-winning movie online via BitTorrent and other services.
But this is not an unconditional victory: an Australian justice will decide how much money the movie studio can demand from the suspects. The court required the plaintiffs to submit a draft of a letter they are going to send to identified file-sharers. Another stipulation of the court decision was that the identities of the Internet subscriber remain confidential.
A few months ago, the largest broadband providers in the country refused to hand over personal details, calling previous requests of Voltage Pictures “speculative invoicing” ahead of the lawsuit. The ISPs claimed that the copyright owners were using discovery letters to threaten Internet users into making settlements.
In the meantime, Voltage Pictures is known as a smaller, independent movie company, with its recent releases including Don Jon, Killer Joe and Thanks for Sharing. The company has also aggressively pursued copyright infringement cases in the United States and Denmark.
In the United States, with the help of the US Internet service providers, the company obtained names and IP addresses of people who had illegally downloaded the movie and filed suit against them threatening with a fine of up to $150,000. Suspected pirates have usually settled out of court for around $5,000.
Entertainment industry has responded forcefully to the increase in digital piracy, but many copyright owners simply ask the broadband providers to forward their users a written warning. However, some adult content distributors including the Io Group have aggressively pursued the lawsuit strategy with great success – they even provided convenient PayPal and credit card options in those threatening “notification” letters.
In other countries – for example, Canada, – ISPs have chosen to throttle P2P traffic – in other words, they slowed down the Internet connections of people using the Internet to access potentially illegal files via P2P services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
