Talk:NordVPN

Article seems like an advertisement

An independent audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers has described the company's claims of not logging users' data as accurate. The audit refers to their service and server configurations as of November 1, 2018.

This paragraph is missing citations as of Tuesday, October 22 GMT+8, and also sounds awfully like an advertisement. I'm going to mark it as citation needed, and mark the article as a potential advertisement Would (oldosfan) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: the PwC audit seems to be cited in a separate paragraph below (https://vpnpro.com/blog/why-pwc-audit-of-nordvpn-logging-policy-is-a-big-deal/), though in my opinion it's not a reliable secondary source, since VPN comparison sites are known to host promotional material from paid sponsors. Would (oldosfan) 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a new citation from a secondary source regarding the audit. Are there any remaining parts of the article that potentially sound like an advertisement and could be fixed? Minor stab 13:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hacker Noon is not a reliable source due to low editorial oversight. It was previously discussed in August, although you could start a new noticeboard discusson if you want to solicit other opinions. I've removed the Hacker Noon citation and restored the {{Citation needed}} tag. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added two reliable sources – PCMag UK and Wired UK (RSP entry) – then rewrote the No-log policy section to be based on the information in the sources. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, since TorrentFreak explicitly discloses that "NordVPN is one of our sponsors" in "NordVPN Shares Results of ‘No-Log’ Audit", I've removed their analysis per our guideline on sponsored content. — Newslinger talk 10:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Company nationality

It would be useful in my opinion to infer the nationality of the company and display it in the article... --Florofill (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I live in the Nordic countries, which "ideals" this company follows and I have to pay 24% VAT when purchasing. This means the money ain't most likely going to a bank account in the Nordics, but somewhere else.
EDIT: Found it, NordVPN is based in Panama --Mattfolk (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Advertisement?

I'm getting the feeling this article is not as neutral as can be. For example:

In 2017, NordVPN launched a number of obfuscated servers designed for using VPN under heavy Internet restrictions. These servers allow accessing the service in countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and China. Although the Chinese government has been attempting to restrict encrypted communications for years, millions of people still rely on the technology to bypass China’s censorship system, known as the Great Firewall.

The Chinese government bit seems like it's selling the NordVPN feature, rather than providing information about the company or the app or the service (the page also does not really make a distinction between the two).

Not to point fingers, but the edit history also shows that there's been minor editor conflicts about the content of this page by people accusing each other of working for the companies. TheGuyOfDoom (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

agreed, also see article sounds like an advertisement above Would (oldosfan) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tesonet case

Please do not delete the Tesonet paragraph without first discussing it here. The court case and other documents referenced there contain information that is highly relevant to NordVPN and most importantly they confirm that NordVPN is Tesonet brand, which NordVPN denied or evaded answers before. It also confirms the fact that Tesonet run data-mining business, which creates a clear conflict of interest. At the same time the paragraph also contains NordVPN statement which, even though still evasive, is highly relevant to the topic of the article. Cloud200 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Tesonet issue

The Tesonet paragraph still contains unsourced material, which is based on assumptions rather than documented facts. Furthermore, some of the text directly contradicts the references provided. For instance, it says: "Luminati accused Tesonet of infringing its patents in "Tesonet’s VPN service called NordVPN"". However, the provided complaint mentions NordVPN only once and specifies that the mention describes events "prior to and separate from the technology at issue in this case."

In addition, much of the paragraph seems to be designed to showcase the alleged connection between NordVPN and Tesonet rather than describe the case itself. The allegation of data mining directly contradicts the parts of the article that describe an independent PwC audit, which specifically confirmed no data mining.

I recommend changing the paragraph name for more accuracy, aligning the facts with the sources, and referring to the audit results for a more objective description. Minor stab (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for constructive comments, I will definitely continue to work on improving this section. As for PwC audit - there's no contradiction. PwC was hired to audit NordVPN logging policy and, as with all audits, could confirm only this particular fact at that particular time. Tesonet business proxy services are generally based on injecting traffic through client software which is orthogonal to traffic logging. Cloud200 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. However, the burden of proof lies on you. Please provide any data supporting your claims. NordVPN is one of the top VPN services, which means that network scans and app behavior analysis are done on daily basis by people from all over the world (https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/nord-vpn-botnet/). It would be relatively easy for you to support your claim by performing a network scan through Wireshark or any other similar application, or find sources that have already done that. Please provide some clear evidence instead of speculating. Minor stab (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the Tesonet court case section, as it was not supported by a single reliable secondary source. The court complaint is a primary source written from the perspective of the plaintiff, and the other sources (VPNscam.com and Restore Privacy) are unreliable self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 10:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

References

* Event for possible inclusion: [1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Country-related claims

I've removed some of the country-related claims in the History section, as they failed the verifiability policy. The affected paragraph's original text was:

In 2017, NordVPN launched obfuscated servers for VPN access under heavy Internet restrictions. These servers allow accessing the service in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China. Although the Chinese government has been attempting to restrict encrypted communications for years, millions of people still rely on various VPN services to bypass China's censorship system, known as the Great Firewall. In October 2019, after the Government of Hong Kong enacted an anti-mask law in response to the mass demonstrations against China's increasing influence over city affairs, LIHKG, the online platform for the protesters, urged people to download VPNs for bypassing potential internet shutdowns. On October 7, NordVPN reportedly became the fifth most downloaded mobile app in Hong Kong.

References

Sources #2–5 don't mention NordVPN at all, and The Epoch Times (RSP entry) is a deprecated source. I've relocated the paragraph to the Reception section, and reduced the content to:

TechRadar recommended NordVPN for bypassing state-level Internet censorship, including the Great Firewall in China.

References

— Newslinger talk 01:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of the 'Reception' section

The inclusion of a reception section in this article seems of dubious merit to me. Including a collection of (exclusively positive) reviews, regardless of whether the cited sources are reliable, does not seem germane to the goal of neutrally describing a business. HighPriestDuncan (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The cited sources do appear to be reliable, with the exception of "The company has since updated the Terms, explicitly mentioning Panama as its country of jurisdiction.", which I have just now removed as original research. Feel free to add content to the section that reflects the less positive portions of the cited reviews, and feel free to cite reviews from reliable sources that are less positive in tone.​ — Newslinger talk 07:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References