@CaptObvious@Mikufan if the user practiced proper opsec it wouldn’t be an issue. Proton provides privacy not anonymity. Those are 2 different things. The second requires opsec in the users end.
@CaptObvious Proton never claims to provide anonymity though. They even state that it depends on proper opsec. It was the user fault for proving an email as a recovery that led to a more “willing” company that gave his data to police. If they had never done that, it would be a different situation.
Anonymity is an aspect of privacy. Arguably, it is even expected. Proton pat themselves on the back about privacy without being honest about what that includes. They even have a blog post victim-blaming when their “privacy” marketing is shown to be false.
Admittedly, I don’t like Proton. They were far too quick to try to jump in bed with the Chinese Communist Party when Google was kicked out. It left a bad taste. I’ve seen absolutely nothing in the years since to make me question that position.
@[email protected] can definitely be an aspect of privacy but privacy ≠ anonymity. Proton explicitly states this. They arnt going to disobey law, which they also state. I don’t see what the issue is here? They obeyed the law and the user made a mistake on there end. Proton didn’t do anything wrong or tricky
Like… They are required to do by law because its a terrorism case.
Questionable and not the point.
The pointis that the person is an idiot and Proton had to comply with a request about a terrorist.
The point is that Proton, a company that sells privacy, violated that trust, apparently without much of a fight.
The Spanish police didn’t even allege that the person is a terrorist.
I think we’re done here. We’re not even speaking the same language.
Have a nice life.
@CaptObvious @Mikufan if the user practiced proper opsec it wouldn’t be an issue. Proton provides privacy not anonymity. Those are 2 different things. The second requires opsec in the users end.
Agreed
Anonymity most certainly is a part of privacy.
@CaptObvious Proton never claims to provide anonymity though. They even state that it depends on proper opsec. It was the user fault for proving an email as a recovery that led to a more “willing” company that gave his data to police. If they had never done that, it would be a different situation.
Anonymity is an aspect of privacy. Arguably, it is even expected. Proton pat themselves on the back about privacy without being honest about what that includes. They even have a blog post victim-blaming when their “privacy” marketing is shown to be false.
Admittedly, I don’t like Proton. They were far too quick to try to jump in bed with the Chinese Communist Party when Google was kicked out. It left a bad taste. I’ve seen absolutely nothing in the years since to make me question that position.
@[email protected] can definitely be an aspect of privacy but privacy ≠ anonymity. Proton explicitly states this. They arnt going to disobey law, which they also state. I don’t see what the issue is here? They obeyed the law and the user made a mistake on there end. Proton didn’t do anything wrong or tricky