this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2021
78 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

33192 readers
617 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

from their comment on reddit, it seems there wasn't much they could do

In this case, Proton received a legally binding order from the Swiss Federal Department of Justice which we are obligated to comply with. There was no possibility to appeal or fight this particular request because an act contrary to Swiss law did in fact take place (and this was also the final determination of the Federal Department of Justice which does a legal review of each case).

what did you expect them to do?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

Clearly state the difference between ProtonMail and ProtonVPN differences in the kinds of data that are being collected. The issue is not compliance, the issue is that they’d provide enough data for it to be useful, defeating the purpose of their privacy marketing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Try a little harder at least. Just the surrounding publicity even for a lost court-case would have been a net benefit.

Their explanation sound like "we couldn't do anything against this legal over-reach because the entity that did the legal over-reach said that it was all legal and fine", which when you think about it longer than 3 seconds is true for each and every case where the authorities request something. An internal "review" by a biased party involved in one side is not the same as a real test in court.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (1 children)

from my understanding it's a legally binding order that they legally literally can't appeal

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

Yes that is what they claim, but in most jurisdictions there is no such thing as an unappealable order (only after it has been already once dismissed in court can the judge rule-out further appeals) and there usually is some official legal recourse despite what the authorities like to claim in their own self-interest.

If there was a similar precedence case, which would have made chances in court extremely low, then they could have said so. But they basically admit by omission that they didn't even try.