Digital Surveillance Patterns: When VPN Exit Nodes Reveal More Than They Hide
Suspicious Traffic Patterns Emerge
On June 4, 2025, we documented unusual traffic patterns on our blog reporting sexual violence cover-ups at Korean universities. Our analytics showed 
on our blog and 
on our main site.
By June 10, 2025, we had published detailed analysis connecting Korea's military LGBT discrimination with university sexual violence. Our research revealed that in Korean arts and culture programs, 61.5% of female students and 17.2% of male students experience sexual violence, often perpetrated by faculty. We documented how the weaponization of defamation laws keeps victims silent under threat of criminal penalties, creating what appears to be a systematic trapping of foreign students in sexual violence situations through falsified international partnerships.
The VPN Anomaly
After publishing this content, something remarkable happened. Our GDPR-compliant Fathom analytics detected 
—just 1 reader—indicating that blog readers had switched to using VPNs.
However, our Bear Blog analytics, which can detect VPN users without revealing IP addresses, showed 
accessing our content within a relatively short time period. This pattern suggested they were likely from the same organization assigned identical VPN exit nodes.
The geographic distribution was telling: 
. Neither country had been contacted by our organization, nor had we reached out to any Czech or Israeli individuals or institutions.
Strategic VPN Exit Node Selection
The choice of Czech Republic and Israel as VPN exit nodes raises important questions. Both countries share specific characteristics:
- Neither belongs to the G7
- Both have relatively strong economies and robust digital infrastructure
- Both represent nations that certain organizations might perceive as having limited geopolitical influence to challenge surveillance activities
This selection pattern suggests an organization seeking to obscure web traffic while choosing countries they believe they can operate through without significant diplomatic consequences.
Real-Time Monitoring Evidence
The most compelling evidence of systematic surveillance emerged on June 24, 2025. 
, we detected one reader accessing our blog. The timing precision, combined with low traffic in preceding days, makes random coincidence highly unlikely.
This pattern was noticed from June 5-9: any new posting to our social media accounts or blog resulted in 1-3 readers immediately accessing our content. Such behavior indicates a large organization using surveillance tools to monitor our digital communications, with personnel assigned to review new social media and blog postings in real-time.
Institutional Implications
Who has the most to lose from widespread attention to our documentation of sexual violence cover-ups and falsified international partnerships? Our research has already prompted concrete responses:
- End Rape On Campus (EROC) is supporting our efforts
- Three US universities have confirmed they will re-evaluate their partnerships with Korean institutions
- A Canadian university has publicly denied any partnership agreement with Dongguk University
- Our regular updates to the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) regarding sexual violence compliance risks are being read, despite institutional silence
The Broader Context
The surveillance patterns coincide with our high engagement on Xiaohongshu regarding sexual violence cover-ups and falsified partnerships. Despite notifications to G7 embassies about these issues—supported by the 2020 KWDI report documenting rampant faculty sexual violence in Korean arts and culture programs—no official announcements have been made.
The silence from major universities and government entities, combined with systematic digital surveillance, suggests institutional awareness of the scope and implications of our findings. Organizations are maintaining silence to avoid public relations and legal liability exposure, while simultaneously monitoring our activities.
Questions That Demand Answers
The evidence raises critical questions about institutional accountability:
Which organization is conducting systematic surveillance of advocates documenting sexual violence in education?
Why are VPN exit nodes strategically selected from countries perceived as diplomatically vulnerable?
What institutional interests are threatened by transparency regarding sexual violence rates and falsified international partnerships?
How many other advocates and journalists face similar digital surveillance when investigating educational institutional failures?
The 61.5% of female students and 17.2% of male students experiencing sexual violence in Korean arts programs aren't statistics—they're victims failed by systems that prioritize institutional reputation over student safety. The digital surveillance of those advocating for these victims represents another layer of institutional failure that demands scrutiny and accountability.
Our commitment to transparency continues, regardless of who monitors our digital communications. The evidence speaks for itself, and the victims deserve justice that no amount of surveillance can obscure.