PCMag pays attention to what its readers are looking for, whether it's questions on Twitter, emails to our writers, or even what searches lead people to our site. That's why I and others have worked hard testing and rating products to answer your questions about which is the best VPN overall, or the fastest VPN, or which is the best VPN for BitTorrent. People want to know. But one of the most frequently searched terms is also one I can't answer: Which VPN is best for use in China?
Context Is Everything
Regardless of which product we review here at PCMag, context is critically important. When we test a product, we do it in the context that we know best and what's appropriate for the vast majority of our audience. For us, that means people living in the US. If we were writing
Take Slacker Radio, for instance. My colleague Jeff Wilson loves Slacker Radio and has been singing its praises for years. But it's also a service that's only available in the US and Canada. If Jeff were writing in Spain or South Korea, he probably wouldn't think too highly of the service, because it wouldn't be available to him. This is especially true for cell phones. We do not review phones that aren't released in the US because they simply are not relevant to the biggest portion of our readers.
Without an intimate knowledge of another country—its norms, its legal systems—my recommendation would be a guess at best.
The Context of Consequences
While context informs the review, something I often think about is what it would mean if I get something wrong. What happens if we endorse a bad
Endorsing a bad video game probably has more to do with my bad taste, and that's not going to seriously hurt anyone, though readers who spent $60 on a game they hate may think twice before trusting me again. It's a problem, but not a life-or-death one.
Endorsing a security product that doesn't work is more serious. Getting that wrong means exposing readers who followed my advice to threats they believed themselves to be protected against. It also means that they probably spent money (or gave privileged access) to a company that didn't have their best interests at heart.
That's bad, but in the US, at least we have a system of laws and a robust judiciary to handle complaints against any person or company, including foreign nationals and our own government. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but a pathway exists
That is not true everywhere in the world. If someone living in a country where the government routinely attacks the privacy of its own citizens takes my advice, and I am wrong, the consequences are potentially much greater. It could mean censure, jail time, or worse.
The Consequences of VPNs
In the US, the biggest threats VPNs guard against are those of scammers and hackers, who are motivated by money, and ISPs and advertisers, who are also motivated by money. If you're using a VPN that doesn't actually work, the worst that will usually happen is that you get cyber-robbed (and can probably seek protection from the police and FDIC) or that your data is monetized by an army of third parties, which is really just the status quo.
I am not naive about US government surveillance. The Edward Snowden leaks of 2013 revealed an enormous infrastructure that is capable of spying on just about everyone's web traffic. I'm also aware of the US government and state police's frequent efforts to target minority communities directly. I don't have to look far from home to see it. The NYPD is still taking heat for infiltrating Muslim community groups in the wake of 9/11 and Occupy Wall Street protests.
A VPN and antivirus will absolutely help protect you against these kinds of threats, but only up to a point. What I have learned from years on the security beat is that if you are targeted specifically by a sufficiently funded and motivated adversary, state actor or otherwise, they'll eventually find a way. Once your traffic leaves the VPN server, unless it's HTTPS traffic, it could be picked up and read by the NSA or any other three-letter agency. The best protection against this kind of threat has to be bigger than just software. It's lawsuits, elections, and community action.
In other countries, censorship and suppression of speech are broader and more robust for citizens than in the US. The so-called Great Firewall of China is the standout example, but there are others. Simply accessing the uncensored web or being able to share information and opinions without fear of reprisal requires a VPN. These are inarguably where VPNs are needed the
And that's exactly why I can't recommend a VPN for those markets. Because the stakes are much, much higher if I get it wrong. If someone living under an oppressive regime uses a VPN that doesn't work exactly right, they could be punished. I cannot justify risking the safety of others on my recommendations. Perhaps that's overly self-important, but it's dangerously outside my lane to play fast and loose with the megaphone I have been given by working at PCMag. I am not an NGO, nor am I the UN.
The Limitations of Reviews
My job at PCMag is, first and foremost, to test and review products as they are. For things like Photoshop or Mystic World of Wiz, hands-on access is usually all I need to understand a product. Security is trickier. Even if a VPN company has all the best policies, has its heart in the right place, and uses all the right technology, it can still accidentally expose user information if its servers are badly configured or its software is not properly implemented.
I don't have the knowledge, time, or resources to inspect every single service I review in minute detail. Nor would I be likely to get the insider access necessary to do that kind of work. Moreover, that's not really a consumer-focused review. That's closer to auditing or penetration testing. This is why PCMag has always looked for neutral third parties to better handle testing sensitive products.
Several third-party labs have been testing antivirus for years, and we have incorporated their work into our reviews. AV-Test recently carried out
The Best VPN for China (or Anywhere That's Not the US)
What I can do, as a journalist, is give the best information I have and let readers make a decision for themselves. That's true for here in the US, but it's especially true for everywhere else. Those abroad know their situation better than I ever could.
In each of my reviews, I discuss the legal jurisdiction in which the VPN company operates, what is stated in its privacy policy, and what efforts the company takes to protect user privacy in the event that it is subpoenaed by law enforcement. I do make a judgment, in the form of a score, about these services, but by showing my work, my aim is for readers to have the information to make an informed choice for them.
When it comes to using a VPN in a potentially dangerous situation (say, in China), I generally refer people to the information provided by the VPN companies themselves. NordVPN has specific recommendations on its website for accessing its services while in China. Private Internet Access also has information on best practices for using a VPN in China.
Most VPN companies that provide services in countries with repressive governments have similar documentation. NGOs also provide tools for people concerned with surveillance. The EFF, for example, has its Surveillance Self-Defense documents, ongoing coverage of surveillance tools, and (albeit now quite old)
Too Serious for Mistakes
I couldn't live with the idea that something I wrote could land someone in prison or otherwise jeopardize their freedom or their safety. It's not a risk I'm willing to take. I do the job that I do because I am genuinely concerned about privacy and the need for robust free speech in order to have