Activity logs vs connection logs: activity logs can include websites visited, downloads, and apps used, while connection logs can include connection timestamps, the VPN server used, and data transferred—some providers avoid activity logs but still keep connection logs.

Why this matters: even “just” connection metadata can help correlate a user to a session when combined with other data sources, so readers should look for policies that explicitly limit both categories.​

What can still exist: many “no‑logs” VPNs still keep billing/account records (email, payment status), which can identify a customer even if traffic isn’t logged.​

How to choose

Independent audits are the best common verification: a no‑logs audit is a third‑party review that checks whether real systems and configurations match privacy policy claims, but it’s still point‑in‑time and should be recurring.

Technical measures that reduce log persistence: RAM‑only (diskless) servers run in volatile memory and wipe data on power-off/reboot, reducing the risk of stored logs being recovered from seized hardware.

Strong protocol support: prioritize WireGuard and OpenVPN support for modern performance and mature security options, rather than vague “military-grade” language.​

Leak protection baseline: DNS leak protection, IPv6 handling, and a reliable kill switch should be treated as mandatory because they prevent accidental exposure outside the tunnel.​

Transparency signals: transparency reports, ownership clarity, and a public incident history help users judge trust beyond slogans.​

Technical checklist (must-have features)

• DNS handling: prefer provider-operated DNS routed through the tunnel to reduce exposure to ISP DNS logging, and verify the provider doesn’t silently use third-party resolvers without disclosure.
• Kill switch details: the kill switch should work at the system/network level (blocking traffic if the tunnel drops), not only “disconnecting inside the app,” because app failures can leak traffic.​
• Split tunneling caveat: split tunneling can improve usability, but it creates clear “outside the VPN” paths, so the guide should warn that it can undermine privacy goals if misused.​
• Obfuscation (if needed): for restrictive networks, readers should look for obfuscation/stealth modes designed to make VPN traffic harder to detect and block, since standard VPN patterns may be filtered.​
• Testing guidance: include a practical “before/after” checklist for DNS leaks, IPv6 leaks, and WebRTC exposure because configuration and OS/browser behavior vary.​

Legal limits and jurisdiction

Jurisdiction determines legal pressure: where the provider is based affects surveillance and compliance obligations, including whether authorities can compel retention or logging.

Data retention laws can conflict with “no logs”: some countries require keeping connection data for set periods, which can force providers to retain or start collecting metadata depending on local rules.

“Nothing to hand over” depends on practice: a no‑logs policy only helps in legal requests if the provider truly hasn’t stored the requested data in the first place.​

Rules of use, restrictions, and user data safety

• Acceptable use rules: most VPNs prohibit fraud, abuse, and attacks; your article should tell users to read Terms of Service because “privacy tool” does not mean “permissionless tool.”​
• Technical restrictions: simultaneous device limits, server/location availability, P2P restrictions, and port-forwarding policies affect real-life use (streaming, torrenting, gaming, remote work) and should be listed in each TOP‑5 profile.
• User data safety model: explain that VPNs encrypt traffic between device and VPN server, but websites can still track users via logins/cookies/fingerprinting, so users should not assume anonymity.​
• Account privacy: advise minimizing personal identifiers (separate email, careful payment choices) because billing/account data can remain identifying even with no traffic logs.​
• Safe defaults: encourage always-on VPN on untrusted Wi‑Fi, auto-connect rules, and disabling risky features (or configuring them carefully) to reduce human error.