Also a VPN would help hide the activity from the ISP.

@BruceWayne - But not from the VPN's administrators. :-)

Your ISP probably won't know about any local traffic, although that's unlikely what OP is thinking of.

@ PyRulez Depends on the VPN. You can google it, but if one is especially concerned about privacy, they should choose a VPN provider which doesn't log. There are a few. None of which are free either.

@trognanders... "The VPN service is likely more privacy oriented, less inclined to provide any statistics as a matter of course" Do you have any empirical evidence to back that up. Otherwise, I call foul. "Free" VPN providers, just like "free" internet email providers, most certainly log and have analytics. You're, and very incorrectly, using "private" and "privacy" synonymously.

-1 Using Tor with a browser other than Tor browser is extremely foolish and is heavily warned against by the Tor project and anonymity researchers.

@forest - Citation please? The folks over at Brave are pretty smart and clued-in people, are privacy-obsessed (that's the whole reason Brave exists), and massively experienced.

@MGoBlue93 The main difference is that my ISP knows my true name and can easily match it to the logs, while the VPN provider doesn't.

@T.J.Crowder I'd say the VPN parents are much less likely to hand over logs (if they even keep them) to someones parents than an ISP is (when the parents are the ones paying the bills). But that's details - good answer!

@forest - See twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1101066966662610945. He has an unfavorable characterization of your comment above, but also seems (to me) to imply that using Brave's Tor window is less secure than Tor Browser, so I've updated the answer to remove mention of Brave. Also cites historial bugs in Tor Browser due to upstream Firefox/Gecko issues, so no silver bullet, but it's not the response I would have expected from Brave.

I'm pretty sure the ISP won't be able to identify which device behind NAT was active, though.

@FedericoPoloni... I think the notion of "easily" using the username at the ISP level is another discussion point. When looking at logs, forensically, investigators are going to use IP address just as "easily". There's no implied obfuscation by not having an account name.

@TJCrowder: when you want to be anonymous, diversity of browser implementation that uses Tor is bad. You want everyone to look the same. Using any other browsers for Tor is bad for the network even if you don't care about being anonymous yourself.

@LieRyan - If that were the case, why would the people behind Tor work with Brave to diversify browser options and approve their use of the network?

@T.J.Crowder Tor benefits from having numerous users so integration in more products is a good thing if it can attract more users. Doesn't necessarily mean diversity is good in itself.

@Droplet - That logic doesn't really hold. :-) Tor personnel want to do things that are bad for the network for the good of the project? I tend to doubt that. But if they do, if they're making trade-offs, they're in a much better position to judge those tradeoffs than myself or the other people commenting here.

The ISP will absolutely hand-over traffic logs to a subscribed who requests them (if they are willing/able to do it). The fact that a child of the subscriber is the intended surveillance target has no bearing on whether the ISP will release that information. The most likely reason the ISP wouldn't give-up the data is because they "just don't do that"... probably because they don't want to (a) do the work necessary to provide the information and (b) freak-out customers by revealing the extent of the information they have about their network accesses.