Using a VPN to hide your location could expose you to government surveillance

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,998   +58
Staff
A hot potato: The growing popularity of commercial VPN services – long promoted as essential privacy tools – has prompted a new warning from Capitol Hill: the same technology that hides Americans' online footprints could be placing them under surveillance as if they were foreign nationals.

Six Democratic lawmakers on Thursday asked Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to reveal whether US citizens who connect through VPNs are losing constitutional protections against warrantless spying. Their letter argues that because virtual private networks obscure a user's true location, intelligence agencies may presume those communications are foreign in origin – a classification that could leave Americans exposed to surveillance programs meant for non-US targets.

The signatories, Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs, said the situation demands transparency. Their message to Gabbard is that ordinary privacy practices may be undermining legal safeguards many Americans assume remain intact.

Commercial VPNs route internet traffic through servers that can sit anywhere in the world. That makes it harder for US intelligence agencies to determine where a communication truly originates. According to declassified guidelines cited in the letter, the National Security Agency presumes that "a person whose location is unknown is presumed to be a non-US person unless there is specific information to the contrary." The Department of Defense applies a similar rule in its own signals-intelligence procedures.

That blanket assumption carries significant risk for domestic users, especially as millions of Americans rely on VPNs for ordinary reasons: securing connections on public Wi-Fi, accessing region-locked media, or shielding personal data from advertisers. The lawmakers said that under current intelligence-collection authorities, packets of data flowing through these global VPN networks could easily be swept into foreign surveillance streams.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the legal mechanism that permits warrantless targeting of foreigners overseas. The program sweeps up vast quantities of communications, including messages sent by Americans, and the FBI may later search them without a warrant.

Section 702 is due to expire next month, and its possible renewal has become one of the most politically charged fights in Washington over the balance between national security and personal privacy.

Wyden – who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and has a history of pressing the government on secret spying practices – has often used public letters like this one to flag classified concerns that he cannot discuss openly. His presence signals that this is more than a routine question about how internet traffic is routed.

Beyond Section 702, lawmakers also raised alarms about Executive Order 12333, the Reagan-era directive that authorizes wide-ranging foreign surveillance operations with far fewer constraints. Unlike Section 702, which requires court oversight, surveillance under EO 12333 proceeds under guidelines approved solely by the US attorney general. The letter cautions that the same "foreignness presumption" that applies under 702 also governs collection under 12333, meaning that data from Americans routed through foreign VPN servers could be swept into "bulk, indiscriminate surveillance of foreigners' communications."

Adding to the irony, multiple US agencies – from the NSA to the Federal Trade Commission – have recommended VPNs to strengthen online security. Yet, as the lawmakers note, consumers have received little official guidance about how to use those services without inadvertently forfeiting the rights intended to protect them. "Clarify what, if anything, American consumers can do to ensure they receive the privacy protections they are entitled to under the law and the US Constitution," the letter concludes.

Permalink to story:

 
Aren't foreigners also able to use US based VPN servers? Wouldn't that mean that intelligence agencies treat all VPN traffic as if it is potentially foreign? So even if you're routing through a VPN server located in the US, the government may still be treating the traffic as foreign?
 
This would concern me if I didn’t know that US citizens are tracked just as much as anyone else.

The only difference is lip service and talking points. The FBI admitted it was just buying the data it wasn’t allowed to collect. Do you think the NSA is doing less than the FBI?
 
The only difference is lip service and talking points. The FBI admitted it was just buying the data it wasn’t allowed to collect ...
Correction: the FBI isn't banned from having this data. It isn't even banned from itself collecting the data directly. It's banned from collecting it without consent. The data they're buying is derived ultimately from individuals who all downloaded apps and consented to have their information collected.

Aren't foreigners also able to use US based VPN servers? Wouldn't that mean that intelligence agencies treat all VPN traffic as if it is potentially foreign? So even if you're routing through a VPN server located in the US, the government may still be treating the traffic as foreign?
The fact that a VPN is being used is irrelevant; what matters is if that VPN routes traffic so it travels in part outside the borders of the US. Once that happens, it becomes foreign SIGINT under EO 12333, and can be freely monitored.

The *real* loophole is an Obama-era program (thx, Ed. Snowden) of the NSA performing "traffic shaping" so that internet traffic that would normally remain entirely in the US instead gets shunted through a foreign router, which then allows them to collect it.
 
A VPN is one of the most misunderstood topics.

The article says that using a VPN could expose you to government surveillance, and yes, that sounds dramatic, there is a bit of truth to it, but it’s not as simple as it sounds.

What a VPN actually does is pretty straightforward, as most know, it hides your IP address and encrypts your traffic. Very useful, especially on public WiFi or if you don’t want your ISP tracking everything you do.

But here’s the part people miss.....You’re not eliminating trust...you’re shifting it.
Without a VPN, your ISP can see your activity, with a VPN, your VPN provider can potentially see your activity instead.

So the real question becomes...who do you trust more?

It’s useful for everyday privacy, sure, but it’s not designed to protect against serious, targeted surveillance. And if you don’t understand what it does, you can end up with a false sense of security...or worse, trusting the wrong entity.

Tablet on public wifi, VPN on,....Home PC, no VPN.

If you think your free VPN is not tracking you, you are dead wrong, how do you think they make money to provide the service?
 
Last edited:
VPN's are the new trackers. VPN's sell your data just as much as anyone else.
While their servers can "see" what sites you're visiting, the content is encrypted. The sites are recorded in their server logs. The reputable ones discard their logs.

I'll bet you're speaking of free VPNs, which should never be used.
 
While their servers can "see" what sites you're visiting, the content is encrypted.
The content is decrypted on the VPN side and retransmitted in the clear. Will a "reputable" VPN bow to government pressure and record that plaintext? I hope not ... but I wouldn't bet on it.

In any case, even without the cooperation of the VPN, a simple statistical traffic analysis can often decrypt your data regardless, for a state-level actor able to fully monitor that traffic.
 
Last edited:
The 4th amendment ensures a right to privacy, but of course the US govt doesn't care about the constitution when they're using surveillance for their own gain.
 
I'm a firm supporter of privacy, abortion, and several other things that some people like to pretend are in the Constitution ... but aren't.
Just my opinion of course, but those are the things Americans should be fighting for.
Any of those, a firm believer has and deserves every right to defend and lobby for them.
 
Last edited:
Back