you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 199 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Once again - Proton is legally obligated to comply with the laws of the country in which they are based. This isn't specific to Proton, and they are not going behind your back to do this. In case it's not clear, this data is directly from Proton.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, this is not really an own against Proton... There's other actual issues with the services and leadership that are more serious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    The one comment by one person on the 5-person board who was supportive of one singular person that Trump had picked? That one?

    I'm not a fanboy here. I just hate misinformation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    And thanked Trump for their effort against BigTech.

    You hate misinformation but you sure know how to cherry pick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    What's your motivation to downplay it, fanboyism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Who said anything about downplaying? This is how law works. If you are a company operating in any particular country, you have a legal obligation to follow the laws of said country. And if that means handing over data because you were subpoenaed? Tough titties, cough it up. Or get arrested for failing to comply. And this includes your own data if you choose to self-host your own email.

    Don't mistake me understanding the law for agreeing with the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You downplayed the positive remarks towards Trump by claiming it was "one of five" instead of a co-founder and CEO.

    To give the full X post that you seemed to not be aware of when claiming "misinformation" through others;

    (First sentence is what you've claimed people pull out of context) Great pick by @realDonaldTrump

    The rest of his post was:

    . 10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned. People forget that the current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.

    Now if this is enough to dislike proton is up to debate, especially after their announcement back and forth afterwards. Claiming. Like you did, that it's "just praising the choice for one role by one of five board members" though ... Sounds like "downplaying" to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Link, for most of the people in this thread surprised that Proton does what it's pretty clear in saying they'll do.

    And people getting into trouble for using proton for stuff they are saying not to do.

    https://proton.me/blog/protonmail-threat-model

    Not recommended

    If you are attempting to leak state secrets (as was the case of Edward Snowden) or going up against a powerful state adversary, email may not be the most secure medium for communications. The Internet is generally not anonymous, and if you are breaking Swiss law, a law-abiding company such as Proton Mail can be legally compelled to log your IP address. A powerful state adversary will also be better positioned to launch one of the attacks described above against you, which may negate the privacy protection provided by Proton Mail. While we can offer more protection and security, we cannot guarantee your safety against a powerful adversary.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    No it doesn't contradict their advertising. They've been completely open about this the entire time.

    And they're not providing anything other than account details per the infographic. Account data remains encrypted

    It's on you if you thought a business would break the law for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    It is safe; your data is still encrypted. They only provide account metadata.

    You're confusing privacy with anonymity.

    Edit: and furthermore, Proton does have the ability for you to set up your account anonymously. You can use a burner recovery email and pay with Bitcoin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I just want a low cost VPN to get around in-state censorship and the occasional bit of piracy. I'm not running a Wikileaks fork or trying to do OpSec for The Revolution.

    If you're spinning up your own version of Silk Road, maybe consider a home lab instead of relying on untrusted third parties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    Imagine the Orange government demanding some delicate data for some political or pretty reason - should provider still comply? What if Chinese government does the same? Also I might be mistaken, but doesn't US force providers not to disclose the request to affected party, at least they can?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago*

    Imagine the Orange government demanding some delicate data for some political or pretty reason - should provider still comply?

    Believe it or not - when legally obligated, even providers like Google and Apple can and do comply.

    What if Chinese government does the same?

    See above. If a company is operating in China, that company (or branch) has to comply with the local laws. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

    Also I might be mistaken, but doesn’t US force providers not to disclose the request to affected party, at least they can?

    I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if that was the case.

  • source
  • parent