> for example, PIA is probably a massive honeypot for all we know.
Why the 'probably'? Of course, no VPN-provider should be trusted at face value, but do you know of any sources that claim that Private Internet Access is in fact an elaborate honeypot?
I was just thinking that PIA would be the perfect candidate for a honeypot, especially since it's under USA jurisdiction. Does the "probably" make it sound like I'm making a claim? I can change it if you'd like.
I would have to agree with extra88, saying "for all we know PIA could be a honeypot" or "PIA would be the perfect honeypot" is every different from saying "PIA is probably a honeypot".
Looking at the argument though, even if it is a honeypot blowing it is a one-shot deal. The users are never going to trust PIA nor any other VPN that makes similar claims ever again. That means that they probably wouldn't spring the honeypot, if it is one, for anything but the biggest fish.
He did say "for all we know"; albeit that followed "probably a honeypot" rather than preceded it.
Frankly, I think you're all splitting hairs. Most of us understood the point he was making even if the phrasing of that sentence didn't flow as well as you may have liked.
This is not an attack on someone's use of language; merely a polite request to clarify a piece of ambiguous phrasing. If there are indeed sources that claim that PIA is acting as a honeypot, then that would be very interesting to know.
Yes, "PIA is probably a massive honeypot" is equivalent to "more likely than not, PIA is a massive honeypot." I don't think you mean that since you followed it with "for all we know."
Why the 'probably'? Of course, no VPN-provider should be trusted at face value, but do you know of any sources that claim that Private Internet Access is in fact an elaborate honeypot?