4 ms·

From the addendum: > I was live-tweeting the event, including the interesting presentation by public prosecutor Walder. The remark that ProtonMail was a (poten

by sebiw 7y ago

From the addendum: > I was live-tweeting the event, including the interesting presentation by public prosecutor Walder. The remark that ProtonMail was a (potential) PDCS would have been too trivial to be live-tweeted. The insight on the other hand that ProtonMail voluntarily offers assistance for real-time surveillance, was spectacular and I therefore live-tweeted the statement. In its transparency report, ProtonMail – as mentioned above – itself refers to at least one case of real-time surveillance.

protonmail 7y ago
The prosecutor in question has come on the record and said he was misrepresented. ProtonMail is also on the record as saying the "voluntary assistance" claim is false and untrue. Unless there is some massive conspiracy/cover-up involving a Swiss public prosecutor, the most likely explanation (the article is wrong) is probably the correct one.
- chmars 7y ago
  Isn't it more likely that the state prosecutor spilled the beans? The statement even matches your own transparency report where you describe a case of IP logging, a typical real-time surveillance measure: 'In April 2019, at the request of the Swiss judiciary in a case of clear criminal conduct, we enabled IP logging against a specific user account which is engaged in illegal activities which contravene Swiss law. Pursuant to Swiss law, the user in question will also be notified and afforded the opportunity to defend against this in court before the data can be used in criminal proceedings.' https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/ https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/ (You mention April 2019, the statement by the state prosecutor was made at the beginning of May, i.e., he was probably really happy about your cooperation.)
  - addicted 7y ago
    So you’re saying that it’s more likely that there is a secret conspiracy, and a prosecutor in a public televised event for which they almost certainly had pre prepared their remarks, accidentally spilled the beans, than someone who is live tweeting an event mishearing, misinterpreting, or misunderstanding those remarks?
    - chmars 7y ago
      There is no need for a conspiracy. The Swiss surveillance state is a fact. It is also a fact that the relevant laws were recently updated with a focus on services like ProtonMail. We are not talking about a public televised event. We are talking about a statement during a presentation. It happens all time time: People talk, sometimes they talk too much.
  - cblades 7y ago
    >Isn't it more likely that the state prosecutor spilled the beans? No, why would it be? As you point out, they've disclosed turning on logging in response to a legal request. Why then deny the event?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by sebiw 7y ago

protonmail 7y ago

The prosecutor in question has come on the record and said he was misrepresented. ProtonMail is also on the record as saying the "voluntary assistance" claim is false and untrue. Unless there is some massive conspiracy/cover-up involving a Swiss public prosecutor, the most likely explanation (the article is wrong) is probably the correct one.

chmars 7y ago
Isn't it more likely that the state prosecutor spilled the beans? The statement even matches your own transparency report where you describe a case of IP logging, a typical real-time surveillance measure: 'In April 2019, at the request of the Swiss judiciary in a case of clear criminal conduct, we enabled IP logging against a specific user account which is engaged in illegal activities which contravene Swiss law. Pursuant to Swiss law, the user in question will also be notified and afforded the opportunity to defend against this in court before the data can be used in criminal proceedings.' https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/ https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/ (You mention April 2019, the statement by the state prosecutor was made at the beginning of May, i.e., he was probably really happy about your cooperation.)
- addicted 7y ago
  So you’re saying that it’s more likely that there is a secret conspiracy, and a prosecutor in a public televised event for which they almost certainly had pre prepared their remarks, accidentally spilled the beans, than someone who is live tweeting an event mishearing, misinterpreting, or misunderstanding those remarks?
  - chmars 7y ago
    There is no need for a conspiracy. The Swiss surveillance state is a fact. It is also a fact that the relevant laws were recently updated with a focus on services like ProtonMail. We are not talking about a public televised event. We are talking about a statement during a presentation. It happens all time time: People talk, sometimes they talk too much.
- cblades 7y ago
  >Isn't it more likely that the state prosecutor spilled the beans? No, why would it be? As you point out, they've disclosed turning on logging in response to a legal request. Why then deny the event?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]