A reputable free VPN can be enough when its privacy practices and usage limits fit your needs. Paying generally buys more capacity, server choice, simultaneous connections, support, and advanced features, but it does not automatically make a VPN more private, secure, or faster.

The useful comparison is therefore not simply “$0 versus subscription.” You need to separate privacy evidence from product limits, distinguish an explicit speed restriction from congestion, and compare what a paid plan actually costs rather than relying on its advertised monthly equivalent.

Free VPN vs Paid VPN: What Actually Changes?

A virtual private network, or VPN, creates an encrypted tunnel between your device and a VPN server when the service and protocol are configured to provide that protection. Free and paid tiers from the same provider can use the same core VPN technology, while differing substantially in capacity, location choice, connection limits, and additional features.

Proton VPN is a useful example. Proton states that its free plan uses the same security level and no-logs policy as its paid plans, without a data, time, or routine speed limit. Its paid tiers add capabilities including broader server choice, more simultaneous devices, paid-plan streaming support, BitTorrent support, and advanced features. Proton’s free-versus-paid plan documentation also states that the free tier is limited to one device at a time.

That distinction matters because a free tier from an established provider is not necessarily a technically weaker VPN. Its main compromises may instead be data allowance, location control, device count, server availability, support, or premium functions.

Free VPN vs paid VPN at a glance

There is no universal winner in that table. A free tier with unlimited data can be entirely adequate for one person, while someone who needs several simultaneous connections, precise exit locations, or paid-only features may encounter its limits immediately.

Privacy: Paying Does Not Automatically Make a VPN Trustworthy

Price is a poor shortcut for privacy. When a VPN is active, traffic is routed through infrastructure operated by the VPN provider, so the provider occupies a position of significant trust.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission explains that a VPN can shift trust away from the local network or internet provider and toward the VPN operator. It also warns that VPN apps may request sensitive permissions, may share information with third parties, and do not make users completely anonymous. Although that guidance was published in 2018, its basic trust model remains applicable. The FTC’s VPN privacy guidance recommends examining the operator and its practices rather than relying on privacy marketing alone.

Recent research also shows why implementation matters. Work presented at USENIX Security 2026 describes observed VPN failure modes including real-IP leakage during tunnel failures, Domain Name System (DNS) queries escaping the tunnel, cleartext traffic, insecure configuration delivery, and advertising-ID exfiltration in the apps and providers studied. The USENIX Security 2026 presentation supports evaluating technical behavior rather than assuming that a paid label establishes security.

When a provider says it keeps “no logs,” check what that statement covers. A no-logs policy can address browsing activity and VPN-session information while the service still retains limited operational account data needed to administer an account or enforce a plan.

Windscribe provides a concrete example. It says a free account can retain a username, hashed password, an email address if supplied, the total bandwidth used during the current period, and a timestamp of last activity. It separately says it does not retain visited sites, DNS queries, the user’s real IP address, or traffic-linked session logs. Windscribe’s free-plan disclosure shows why operational records and browsing-activity logs should not be treated as the same thing.

Independent assessments can strengthen a provider’s claim, but they have a defined scope and date. Proton says its no-logs infrastructure completed a fifth consecutive annual third-party audit in 2026. Proton’s published audit history links the 2026 assessment and earlier reports. That is more useful evidence than an unsupported slogan, but it is not a permanent guarantee about every future app version or security failure.

Whether a VPN is free or paid, examine the provider’s privacy policy, ownership, requested application permissions, independent assessments where available, and the specificity of its technical claims. A subscription receipt is not privacy evidence.

Free VPN Limits: Data, Servers, Devices, and Features

The word “limit” can describe several different restrictions. A data cap limits how much traffic you can use during a period. A device limit controls concurrent connections. A server restriction limits the locations or infrastructure available to the account. None of those automatically means that every connection is deliberately slowed.

Windscribe uses a data-cap model. Its current free-plan page states that an account receives 2 GB per month without a confirmed email address or 10 GB per month with one, and that the free account can be used across unlimited personal devices. Its free server selection is smaller than the paid network. Windscribe documents the allowance and free-tier restrictions.

Windscribe’s current pages do not agree on the exact number of free countries: its main free-plan page lists 10, while a May 2026 support article says 11. Because the provider’s own documentation conflicts, the exact country count is not used here.

Proton takes a different approach. Its free plan has no monthly data ceiling, while paid service expands location choice, increases the connection allowance to as many as 10 devices on eligible paid plans, and adds features unavailable to free users. Proton’s VPN privacy policy says the free service generally has no speed restrictions but reserves the right to impose restrictions in cases of excessive consumption to maintain service quality on free servers.

The practical difference becomes clearer when you consider real workloads. A monthly allowance can be consumed by video, operating-system downloads, cloud synchronization, application updates, or other background traffic even when browsing itself is light. An unlimited-data plan avoids that particular constraint but can still restrict server selection, concurrent devices, or premium functionality.

Different services impose those restrictions in different combinations, so compare free VPN data allowances, device limits, and server restrictions rather than assuming every free tier makes the same compromise.

Speed: Why Paying Can Help Without Guaranteeing a Faster VPN

A paid tier can have a practical performance advantage when it provides access to more servers, additional locations, or infrastructure unavailable to free users. That does not establish a fixed speed difference between free and paid VPNs.

Throughput is the amount of data transferred over time. Latency is the delay between sending network traffic and receiving a response. Both can change because of server distance, congestion, protocol choice, internet routing, Wi-Fi conditions, packet loss, device processing limits, and the underlying connection.

A free plan can introduce another constraint. If free users share a smaller server pool, congestion can become more noticeable when demand rises. A provider can also impose an explicit free-tier speed restriction. Those are different mechanisms: congestion varies with load, while throttling deliberately limits performance according to a rule.

Proton is a useful counterexample to the blanket claim that free VPNs are always throttled. Its current documentation says it imposes no routine speed limit on Proton VPN Free, although free servers can have more users and its privacy policy reserves an excessive-consumption restriction. Paid plans provide broader server access and are marketed as offering faster performance. That supports a narrower conclusion: paying can give you more performance options, but it does not guarantee a particular speed.

No first-hand speed measurements were supplied for this article, so there is no defensible universal percentage showing how much faster a paid VPN is.

If performance is poor, price alone does not identify the cause. Server load, distance, protocol selection, local Wi-Fi, packet loss, routing, Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) problems, and device processing can produce similar symptoms. VPN slowdown troubleshooting is therefore more useful than upgrading blindly when the problem has not been isolated.

Cost: Compare the Real Bill, Not Just the Monthly Headline

A free VPN has no subscription charge, but paid VPN pricing still requires careful comparison because providers use different billing structures.

Mullvad uses a simple model. In February 2026, it stated that its price remains €5 per month regardless of how long a customer pays for. Mullvad’s pricing statement makes the payment term and monthly rate relatively straightforward.

Windscribe illustrates a different structure. Its May 2026 pricing documentation lists Pro at $9 per month or $69 per year and describes Build-A-Plan as having a $3 minimum purchase. Windscribe’s current pricing explanation shows how monthly, annual, and configurable plans can coexist within one service.

Those prices should not be read as a direct cheapest-provider ranking because they use different currencies, products, and billing structures. Instead, use them to identify what needs checking before you buy:

• the amount charged at checkout;
• how long that payment covers;
• whether the advertised monthly figure requires annual or multi-year prepayment;
• the renewal price after any introductory period;
• whether tax is additional;
• and whether the plan includes services you do not need.

Some VPN pricing pages are also localized by region, currency, or promotion. Treat any quoted price as a dated snapshot and verify the checkout terms before purchasing.

When a Free VPN Is Enough

A reputable free plan can be sufficient when its documented restrictions do not interfere with what you need to do. Examples include light or occasional use, one device on a service with a one-device limit, or routine browsing where you do not need a specific exit location.

The data model matters. Proton’s unlimited allowance removes the need to monitor a monthly data meter, while Windscribe can accommodate multiple personal devices but applies a monthly data allowance to its standard free accounts.

The important qualification is reputable. A free application that provides little information about its operator, funding model, privacy practices, permissions, or technical controls should not be treated as equivalent to a documented freemium service merely because both cost $0.

A free VPN becomes a poor fit when you repeatedly exhaust its data allowance, cannot select a required location, exceed its connection limit, or need a feature reserved for paying accounts. At that point, the relevant question is whether paying removes a constraint you actually encounter.

When Paying for a VPN Is Worth It

A paid VPN is easier to justify when its additional capacity solves a specific problem. That can include sustained high-volume use, several simultaneous devices, access to particular server locations, broader P2P support, advanced routing options, or customer support unavailable on the free tier.

Paying can also reduce recurring friction. If you repeatedly disconnect one device to connect another, exhaust a monthly allowance, or cannot access a suitable server location, a paid plan may remove those constraints.

Do not pay solely because a product is described as “premium.” Identify the limitation you need removed, verify that the paid tier actually removes it, and compare the billing terms with alternatives.

Once a paid service fits your requirements better, compare VPN privacy evidence, device limits, protocols, features, and subscription terms rather than treating payment itself as the deciding factor.

Start with provider trust, then compare your data volume, device count, required locations, performance needs, and additional features. If a reputable free tier satisfies those requirements, paying may add little practical value. If one of its restrictions repeatedly interferes with normal use, a well-vetted paid plan is usually the more practical choice.

Surfshark disclosed that hackers accessed one of its internal test servers after a configuration error exposed it to the internet.

The VPN service provider said the incident did not affect its customers and did not extend to other parts of its infrastructure, but it exposed service configurations and build-related credentials.

“Due to a human error, an internal test server used by our engineering teams was misconfigured in a way that made it reachable from the internet,” Surfshark explained on its website.

The exposed environment also contained portions of system binaries and code history.

Surfshark said that the unauthorized party accessed a separate server used for content-accessibility optimization. The machine acted as a proxy and did not have access to any sensitive data, like user identity, IP addresses, encryption keys, or browsing traffic.

The company did not specify which specific binaries, configurations, services, credentials, or files were exposed, but confirmed that production VPN infrastructure and customer data were not impacted.

“Personal information was never held and accessible from here [the breached server], VPN traffic and browsing activity are not logged or retained in the first place, and the apps and browser extensions on your devices were not altered in any way,” the VPN vendor assured.

The company detected suspicious activity on August 31 and contained the incident on September 2. Three days later, the company completed the remediation process.

It also said there was no evidence that the exposed credentials had been misused or that the compromise had spread to other systems.

In response to the incident, Surfshark rotated all internal credentials that may have been impacted, revoked the exposed tokens, and implemented additional threat detection, activity monitoring, and system hardening measures.

These measures include implementing production-level security controls to test environments, improving build-process credential management, and commissioning an independent audit of its broader infrastructure.

Surfshark promised to provide further updates if the ongoing investigation reveals additional important findings.

Based on the published information, Surfshark users do not need to take any action to protect their accounts. However, vigilance against suspicious activity or unsolicited communications is still recommended.

Join Mikko Hyppönen and security leaders from the NFL, CHANEL, and Atlassian for a two-hour digital summit on what AI-speed attacks change, what defenders should stop doing, and how to validate, decide, fix, and re-validate at machine speed.

Save your seat

Whatever wasn’t already going poorly for Flock Safety is just going to keep getting worse. Data collected by privacy activist group Secure Justice pointed out what Flock already knows: it’s losing customers at an unprecedented rate. More than 214 cities and counties have dropped Flock since 2021. More than 90 of those have done that in the last month alone.

It’s not just the persistent surveillance angle working against Flock. While Flock insists its cameras increase public safety, there’s no data out there that supports those claims. The bigger problem is how easily its tech can be abused. Flock allows officers to search a nationwide network of cameras — one that collects 20 billion plate reads a month — while providing very little in terms of restrictions.

In the last month, Flock has attempted to respond to persistent criticism of its tech. It will now limit retention periods and install some mandatory reporting features, most of which are being put in place to prevent cops from committing crimes. That’s how bad it’s gotten. Cops have dragged Flock into their ex-stalking gutter for years and only now is Flock attempting to distance itself from the miscreants it has enabled.

While it must be noted there are several competitors absolutely loling at Flock’s misfortune and slurping up tax dollars to deliver taxpayers more of the stuff they thought they had voted down, the upside of all of this is that Flock has now realized it can’t do business the way it always has.

What’s even more surprising about this backlash is that even cops are turning against it. And it’s not just cops. It’s the people running some of the most MAGA, pro-cop states in the US.

Welcome to the resistance, Ron DeSantis:

Florida has banned local police from placing cameras that read license plates on its state highways in response to growing divisions over law enforcement’s use of technology ​supplied by Flock Safety and others to track vehicles in many parts of ‌the U.S.

Florida’s Department of Transportation said it would revoke previous permits for the cameras and no longer issue new permits within its jurisdiction.

[…]

Advertisement

The memo ⁠followed remarks from Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who last week said the use of ​automated license plate readers has “gotten out of control.”

The caveats are plainly apparent. This only affects state-level cameras, allowing towns and counties to decide whether or not they want to subject their residents to surveillance and stalking. As long as the locals keep their cameras on local streets, the ban does not apply.

But it’s something. And it’s far more than we might have expected from a state where every cop is sacred and every person who doesn’t like the current management an antifa.

The same thing can be said for Texas, which has also delivered its own quasi-ban of Flock products. This one may have less to do with Flock’s enabling of officer-involved crime and more to do with the governor getting caught out by his own appointees’ misuse of public funds:

Abbott’s order blocking state agencies from spending money on Flock cameras came Aug. 27, amid the Tribune’s inquiries about a small state agency tapping at least $30 million from a fund dedicated to catalytic converter theft to help pay for at least 3,200 Flock cameras for law enforcement agencies across the state. Six of the seven board members of the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority are appointed by Abbott.

Caveats all over, starting with the fact that there’s nothing retroactive about this “ban.” Flock cameras obtained with misappropriated funds will apparently still be allowed to operate. This only prevents the CPA from misusing more public funds to buy more Flock cameras.

That obviously means cities and counties can still do whatever they want when it comes to Flock products. And the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is making it clear the governor’s memo doesn’t change a damn thing:

Asked if Abbott’s directive affected the state police force’s camera network, a DPS spokesperson said it will pause installing additional cameras. But a spokesperson said the agency will continue using existing cameras for a variety of “legitimate public safety efforts.”

That’s a bit much to take when the root cause of the quasi-ban was the misuse of funds that were supposed to be used to address a specific “public safety effort.” The fact that more than 206 Texas law enforcement agencies have access to DPS cameras is similarly concerning, considering (by its own admission) DPS has done nothing whatsoever to limit access, much less track abuse of its database.

Still, it’s notable that these two states are doing anything at all to address public concerns about law enforcement misuse of surveillance tech. That’s never seemed to bother them before as neither has shown any resistance to giving federal officers unauthorized access to hunt down migrants or utilizing the surveillance network to do things like track people who are seeking abortions.

These aren’t wins. And the “bans” are so limited you can’t even call them “ties.” But it’s more than we had before Flock repeatedly shot itself in the proverbial foot. Hopefully, this is just the beginning, rather than a “will this do” act of lazy performance that refuses to address real, ongoing problems in favor of “looking busy” for a week or two until the next news cycle rolls through.

Filed Under: alpr, florida, greg abbott, location tracking, ron desantis, surveillance, texas

Companies: flock, flock safety

You can’t enjoy your Roku if it keeps shutting off all the time.

How to turn off auto power saving on your Roku

What if your Roku continues to turn off?

AhmadDanialZulhilmi/Shutterstock

Your iPhone has more ways to silence notifications than you realize.

Setting up Focus modes and Do Not Disturb on iPhone

Filipe Espósito for Engadget

Smart Focus modes for bedtime and driving

Filipe Espósito for Engadget

The annual CEDIA Expo places a heavy emphasis on home theater and smart home technology, but there is also a growing presence in the outdoor audio category. Origin Acoustics, Theory Audio, ELAC, and Polk Audio are among the players in this category, but two companies getting more aggressive in the segment are KEF and Coastal Source.

At CEDIA 2026, Coastal Source was on hand with several new products, including its recently released Bollard 100 Series speakers, Ovation Ceiling Speaker, Power Source Low Voltage Plug-and-Play System, and Via Dynamic Outdoor Lighting, developed in partnership with Lutron.

The Bollard 1000 Series

We have previously reported on the Coastal Source Bollard 1000 Series speakers, but the company’s presence at CEDIA gave us an opportunity to listen to two models; the 3-Way B2600 and 2-Way EB1250 Ellipse — on the show floor.

Both sounded better than I expected, delivering impressive bass, a very prominent midrange, and clear highs. The “weatherized” ribbon tweeters certainly did their job. More importantly, these speakers sounded much closer to what you would expect from mid-to-high-end indoor loudspeakers than conventional outdoor speakers.

For full details and specifications on the entire 1000 Series Bollard lineup, refer to our detailed report: Coastal Source 1000 Series Bollards Bring Ribbon Tweeters Outdoors, Because Why Not.

Ovation Ceiling Speaker

Initially released at the 2025 CEDIA Expo, the Coastal Source Ovation made another appearance at CEDIA this year. 

The Ovation combines high-end performance with a compact but heavy-duty design that is easy to install either outdoors or indoors, with a flush-mount design and 360° clamping system.

The Ovation provides environmental protection with a combination of a rust-resistant extruded aluminum grille and UV-stable plastics & weatherproof fabrics. The Ovation is built to last. 

For sound reproduction, the Ovation incorporates an elliptical driver and ribbon tweeter that provide wide coverage without losing focus on sound quality. It also provides exceptional bass for such a small form factor. 

VIA Lighting

In addition to the Bollard 1000 Series and Ovation speakers, Coastal Source also showcased examples of its VIA lighting solutions, developed in partnership with Lutron. The system supports Lutron’s Ketra full-spectrum color and accent lighting capabilities, along with Rania tunable white lighting.

The fixtures are available in a variety of styles designed to complement different architectural and landscape requirements.

VIA Lighting fixtures feature solid brass construction and plug-and-play installation with Coastal Source power systems, with control provided through Lutron HomeWorks.

Coastal Source PowerSource

One of the biggest challenges with outdoor audio and lighting systems is the complexity of power management. At CEDIA 2026, Coastal Source gave us a closer look at its PowerSource system, designed to simplify that part of the installation process.

According to Coastal Source, its PowerSource system is the first UL-certified, plug-and-play 120V system approved for direct burial (NEMA 6) and above-ground use. The company says the system is designed to provide safe, reliable power where needed while reducing the permitting delays and licensed line-voltage labor costs traditionally associated with outdoor power installations. Local permitting, electrical code, and licensing requirements may still vary by jurisdiction.

The system consists of pre-assembled, modular components that screw together, shortening installation times and reducing the level of specialized labor required. Its modular design also makes the system easier to scale as outdoor audio, lighting, and other systems expand.

PowerSource can also shorten cable runs and improve system efficiency while, perhaps most importantly for the homeowner, helping keep installations clean and discreet.

The Bottom Line 

Coastal Source is not approaching the backyard as a place to bolt a few speakers to the house and call it a day. The Bollard 1000 Series, Ovation, VIA Lighting, and PowerSource system are designed to work together as part of a more complete outdoor entertainment and architectural platform, with sound quality, lighting, installation, and power management addressed under one roof.

The company’s use of weatherized ribbon tweeters is also unusual in this category, and based on what we heard at CEDIA, the better Bollard models can deliver the kind of bass weight, midrange presence, and treble clarity that we normally associate with considerably more serious indoor loudspeakers.

This is primarily aimed at custom integrators, landscape designers, and homeowners building premium outdoor spaces where aesthetics and reliability matter just as much as sound quality. It is not the solution for someone looking to hang a $300 pair of patio speakers beside the grill.

Coastal Source also has considerably more competition than it did a few years ago. Theory Audio Design has been pushing high-output landscape audio further upmarket, while KEF’s expanding outdoor lineup adds speakers, subwoofers, and amplification from one of the biggest names in high-end audio.

The backyard audio wars have officially moved well beyond waterproof speakers and an extension cord.

Price & Availability

Coastal Source products (including amplifiers) are available through Coastal Source and Authorized Dealers. Refer to dealers for pricing and installation.

Related Reading:

Camera technology has come on leaps and bounds throughout the 20th and 21st century, but one of the most important developments was the invention of the CMOS image sensor. This invention, dubbed the ‘camera-on-a-chip’, is the technology that allows everyone to carry high-resolution cameras around in their pockets.

But the history of the CMOS can be traced back to NASA’s desire to install small, low-powered cameras capable of capturing high-resolution imagery on interplanetary spacecraft.

Xi Jinping used the BRICS summit to propose a China-led community for open-source AI and to invite members into the World AI Cooperation Organization, a Beijing-founded body of 29 countries with no EU state among them. Europe drew its line in the AI Act, which exempts genuinely open models but not those carrying systemic risk, and has carried fines since August.

Xi Jinping used the BRICS summit to propose a Chinese-led community for open-source artificial intelligence, Bloomberg reported. He said it would “support the cooperation in developing and applying large language models“, alongside seminars and training courses.

He was speaking in New Delhi on Sunday. A day earlier he had invited BRICS members to join the World AI Cooperation Organization, a body Beijing founded in July.

Twenty-nine countries signed the founding agreement on 16 July and the organisation is headquartered in Shanghai, China’s government said. Russia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Indonesia and Brazil are among them.

No European Union member state is.

The pitch did not carry the room either. The joint declaration issued on Saturday made no mention of it, asking instead for international cooperation on access to AI resources “while ensuring its safety, security, inclusiveness and reliability“.

Europe settled the same question in a statute.

The AI Act exempts providers of genuinely free and open-source general purpose models from keeping technical documentation for regulators, from supplying it downstream and from appointing an EU representative, the Commission’s guidelines say. The weights, parameters and architecture have to be public, and the licence has to permit use and modification without monetisation.

The exemption stops at systemic risk. A model in that tier complies with everything, open licence or not, and every provider still has to publish a training data summary and a copyright policy.

Those rules acquired teeth on 2 August, when the Commission gained the power to demand evaluations, restrict market access and fine 3% of global turnover.

So both blocs have a ceiling on openness. Europe’s is written down and reviewable in court.

China’s is not. Xi told the country’s own AI summit in July that development and security have to be balanced, and a social media account used to signal policy thinking has said the most powerful model features should be restricted.

State security minister Chen Yixin, in a journal article published on Saturday, accused unnamed countries of using blacklists and closed ecosystems to “sever global AI industrial chains and supply chains“.

His own ministry of commerce spent a month this summer discussing whether to curb overseas access to Qwen, Doubao and GLM. Europe published its limit and can be sued over it, while Beijing is still deciding what its own is.

How many you need depends on your home and usage.

What do multiple antennas actually do?

How many antennas is too many?

SOLDATOOFF/Shutterstock