@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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
Indeed it is. The police asked and Proton provided. Very clear indeed.
At last, something we can agree on.
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.