Best French VPN Providers 2017

Traffic P2P Countries # IPs Logs Clients Trial Protocols Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 94 15000+ No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS 30 Days Money Back Guarantee OpenVPN, L2TP/IPsec, SSTP, PPTP View Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 60+ 40000 No Logs Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android 7 Days Money Back Guarantee PPTP, L2TP, Open VPN View Offers
unlimitiert filesharing allowed 190 120.000 Yes Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android 30 Days Free Trial OpenVPN, L2PT, PPTP View Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 9 unspecified No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android 7 Days Money Back Guarantee OpenVPN, PPTP, L2TP/IPSec View Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 32 unspecified No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android No L2TP/IP, PPTP, SSTP, OpenVPN View Offers
unlimited (Premium) partially 12 unspecified No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS Free Version IKEv2, IKEv1, OpenVPN, PPTP, L2TP/IPsec View Offers
unlimitiert partially 141 80000 No Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android 7 Days Money Back Guarantee PPTP, OpenVPN, IKEv2, L2TP/IPSec, SSTP View Offers
unlimited partially 33 2000 Yes Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android 15 Days Money Back Guarantee PPTP, L2TP, OpenVPN, SSTP View Offers
unlimited not allowed 10 unspecified unclear Windows, Mac, Android, iOS No OpenVPN, PPTP View Offers
1TB/month partially 10 unspecified No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS 7 Days Money Back Guarantee OpenVPN, L2TP/IPsec, PPTP View Offers
unlimited unspecified 6 unspecified Yes Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS 1 Day For Free (1GB Traffic) PPTP, L2TP View Offers

Watch TV and live streams from French with an IP adress from French

Best French VPN Providers

France continues to market freedom of the press and language on-line by enabling unfiltered access to the majority of content, apart from racial violence and hate, or small filtering and web sites that encourage terrorism. Numerous measures have been undertaken by the French government to defend Internet users’ rights, for example, passage of the Loi pour la Confiance dans l’Economie Numerique (LCEN, Law for Trust in the Digital Economy) . But the passage of a brand new copyright law threatening to prohibit users on the internet upon their third breach has drawn much criticism from privacy advocates together with the European Union (EU) parliament.[1]

In November 2010, the OpenNet Initiative classifyed France as demonstrating no evidence of Internet filtering in the four regions tracked (political, societal, battle/security, and Internet tools)[1]

Still, using the execution of the “three-strikes” legislation as well as a law providing for the administrative filtering of the internet as well as the defense of a “civilized” Internet, 2010 was a tough year for Internet liberty in France. Their journalists as well as the offices of several on-line media companies were targeted for court summons and breakins and demanded to identify their sources. Because of this, France continues to be added to Reporters Without Borders list of “Nations Under Surveillance”.[2]

Recent Freedom House’ Liberty on the Net 2013 report emphasized the reality that contentious clauses inside the HADOPI, LOPPSI 2, and LCEN laws aroused the ire of web supporters in the united states, mostly around anxieties of disproportionate punishments for copyright violators, overreaching administrative censorship, and risks to solitude. Yet, France is ranked by Freedom House amongst the top 6 states for Internet independence. [3]
LICRA vs. Yahoo

In 2000, French courts demanded Yahoo! block Nazi material in the case LICRA vs. Yahoo.[4] In 2001, a U.S. District Court Judge held that Yahoo cannot be compelled to comply with French laws against the saying of pro-Nazi and anti Semitic viewpoints, because doing so would break its right to free expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[5] In 2006, a U.S. Court of Appeals overruled the District Court, finding either a deficiency of authority or an inability to apply its order in France[6] and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal.[7]
Hadopi laws

The Hadopi law enables disconnecting in the Internet users which were found neglecting to ensure their system against such illegal downloads, or illegally downloading copyrighted content; this law will be supplemented with a Hadopi2 law at the time of August 2009. The LOPPSI 2 law will authorize a blacklist of websites supplying child pornography which Internet service providers must block. The Loppsi “Bill on direction and preparation for the operation of national security” is a far reaching security bill that seeks to modernise Internet laws, criminalising on-line identity theft, enabling authorities to bug Internet connections along with phone lines during investigations and targeting child pornography by ordering ISPs to filter Internet connections.

In 2010, every one of the changes trying to minimise using filtering Internet sites were opposed by French parliament. Controversy has stirred as the world wide web filtering designed to get child pornographers, throughout French society may be expanded to censor other content.[8]

Critics also warn that filtering URLs will not have any effect, as providers of child pornography as well as other materials happen to be using peer-to-peer systems that are encrypted to supply their wares.[9]

In 2011 the Constitutional Council of France validated Article 4 of the LOPPSI 2 law, thus enabling filtering the Internet with no justice conclusion.[10][11][12] The filtered websites blacklist being under the control of an administrative power depending straight in the Ministry of the Interior with no separate observation.

On 21 April 2011, the Hadopi declared critics planned incorporating a spyware called “securization software” in the French Internet Service Providers supplied modem-routers using the explicit aim of tracking any communication including personal correspondence and instant messengers exchanges.[13][14][15]
June 2011: Draft executive order implementing the Law for Trust

A June 2011 draft executive order implementing Article 18[16] of the Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) would give several French authorities ministries[17] the capacity to limit on-line content “in case of infringement, or where there exists a significant threat of infraction, of the care of public order, the protection of minors, the protection of public health, the preservation of interests of the national defense, or the protection of physical men.”[18] According to Felix Treguer, a Policy and Legal Analyst for the digital rights advocacy group La Quadrature du Net, this is “a censorship power within the net which is likely unrivaled in the democratic world.”[19] In response to criticism, on 23 June 2011 the minister for the Business as well as the electronic market, Eric Besson, declared the Government would rewrite the order, perhaps calling to get a judge to critique the legality of the information as well as the proportionality of the measures to be chosen. Any executive order must be accepted by the French Council of State, which must determine whether a simple executive order can extends to such a degree Internet censorship mandate. In 2013, [20] repelled the legislative provision which the decree was based.
October 2011: Policeman-viewing website blocked

On 14 October 2011 a French court ordered French Internet companies to block the Copwatch Nord Paris I-D-F site.[21] The web site shows photos as well as videos of police officers arresting suspects, taunting protesters and supposedly perpetrating acts of violence against members of ethnic minorities. The police said internet were especially concerned about parts of the website revealing identifiable photographs of police officers, as well as private data, that may result in violence from the local authorities. Nevertheless, free speech supporters responded with alarm. “This court order exemplifies an apparent will by the French government to control and censor citizens’ new on-line public world,” said Jeremie Zimmermann, spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, a Paris-based organization that campaigns against limitations on the web.[22]
Twitter case

Following the those posts were removed by Twitter from its service. Suits were filed by the Union of Jewish Students (UEJF), a French advocacy group and, on 24 January 2013, Judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud ordered Twitter to divulge the Personally identifiable information on the user who posted the antisemitic post, charging the posts violated French laws against hate language. Twitter reacted by saying that it was “reviewing its alternatives” involving the French charges. Twitter was given two weeks to obey the court order before day-to-day fines of EUR1,000 (about US$1,300) would be assessed. Problems over authority appear, because Twitter has no offices nor workers within France, therefore it’s not clear how a French court could sanction Twitter.[23] [24] [25]
Pierre sur Haute post deletion
Additional info: Censorship _ Wikipedia France

The French Intelligence Agency DCRI contacted the Wikimedia Foundation, which refused to remove a French Wikipedia post regarding the Military radio station of Pierre sur Haute since the post just included advice that was freely accessible, in accordance with the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. In April 2013 DCRI pushed the deletion of the post when it ordered a volunteer to take down the post that had been since 2009 and summoned him with administrator’s accessibility. DCRI maintained the post broke French law and featured classified military advice. The volunteer, who had no relation to the post, described “that is not how Wikipedia operates” and told them he’d no right to interfere with editorial content, but was told he’d be held in detention and charged if he neglected to honour. This article was later re-established with a Wikipedia subscriber that was Swiss. This article became the most viewed page by April 6, 2013. Christophe Henner, vice president of Wikimedia France, said “if the DCRI comes up with all the essential legal documents we are going to take down the page. We’ve got zero issue with that and have made it a point of honour to respect legal injunctions; it is the approach the DCRI used that’s shocking.”[26][27] The Wikimedia Foundation issued a communique in response.

Imprint | Best VPN Providers 2016