8 ms·

You 'forgot' to copy the full addendum. It reads as follows: 'Public prosecutor Walder of the Competence Center Cybercrime contacted me, saying he had been mis

by chmars 7y ago

You 'forgot' to copy the full addendum. It reads as follows: 'Public prosecutor Walder of the Competence Center Cybercrime contacted me, saying he had been misquoted. He claims that had not divulged at the above-mentioned event that ProtonMail voluntarily releases real-time data. He had merely described ProtonMail as a potential provider of derived communication services (PDCS). 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.' https://steigerlegal.ch/2019/05/23/protonmail-real-time-surveillance/#addendum https://steigerlegal.ch/2019/05/23/protonmail-real-time-surv... Important: The English text is just an unofficial translation.

ziddoap 7y ago
The evidence that was presented by the author can be summarized as: "I live-tweeted it, so they said it. If they didn't, I wouldn't have live-tweeted it.". I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument, even when it's a he-said-she-said type conversation.
- sebiw 7y ago
  Quote from the post: > ProtonMail even mentions a current case of real-time surveillance: „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.“ By writing of a „case of clear criminal conduct“ and of „illegal activities which contravene Swiss law“, ProtonMail violates the presumption of innocence against the monitored suspects. Such suspects are of course not informed by ProtonMail about ongoing real-time surveillance measures.
  - ziddoap 7y ago
    I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging. What I'm saying is that the author claims they voluntarily offer real-time logging without the need for judical intervention - per the prosecutor. The author of the article at hand later added an addendum saying the prosecutor was mis-quoted in their article [[ and that Protonmail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging.]] (Note: The part inbetween [[]] is misleading - the prosectuor does not say that. I wrote it out rather than quoted it directly, and made an error. I am leaving it in for posterity) The authors defense regarding the misquote is saying "I live tweeted it, so it happened". Whether they do or not - I'm just pointing out the weakness of the argument that "I tweeted it, so it happened"
    - sebiw 7y ago
      I think we should not think of "request" in the same way as a court order. This seems the essential difference to me. By the way: The author of the post is an attorney at law and member of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC), which makes me believe that he wouldn't falsely accuse ProtonMail.
      - ziddoap 7y ago
        As an attorney, I would expect a better substantiation than "I tweeted it, so it's true". But, fair enough regarding request vs. order. I am not familiar with Swiss law terminology. And he might be right! But to claim he is right because "I tweeted it during the conference" is, as I said, not swaying me either way.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - gwern 7y ago
      > I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging. What 'order'? All their report says is 'request'. If they had meant order, they would have said court order: in all the other cases in the transparency report, they specify if there was a court order.
- wanderer2323 7y ago
  From what I am seeing in the linked material, the author saw something that made his mind generate the sensational 'news'. Without bothering to check whether it's true or false he posted the generated conjecture as a fact and now is trying to defend the indefensible by attacking ProtonMail instead of posting the clarifications and apologizing. In other words, pretty much the definition of fake news.
protonmail 7y ago
From above, there is a Swiss public prosecutor, who is on the public record as saying that he "had not divulged at the above-mentioned event that ProtonMail voluntarily releases real-time data." That is a pretty conclusive statement that the reporting here is false.
- chmars 7y ago
  Please answer one simple question: Do you perform real-time surveillance of users? Yes or no?
  - adventured 7y ago
    > Do you perform real-time surveillance of users? Yes or no? Hey ProtonMail, I'd like to see a very clear, no bullshit, Yes or No to that question. Your creditibility is being lit on fire in real-time. It'd be a good idea to clarify whether any real-time surveillence ever occurs.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      If the following conditions obtain: 1. a law permits compelling a company to produce real-time data (or anything else), 2. a company has that technical capability, and 3. the company in #2 is in a jurisdiction with a law like #1, you should assume real-time surveillance data will be provided in cases where it is so ordered. You don't need to wait for them to tell you that it is. It can go without saying. How could it be otherwise? If the guys with the guns show up to demand that data, what else are they gonna do? The Lavabits of the world are incredibly rare, for the exact same reason that Lavabit doesn't exist any more.
    - sdinsn 7y ago
      They answered your question, please read more carefully: > ProtonMail does not voluntarily offer assistance. We only do so when ordered by a Swiss court or prosecutor, as we are obligated to follow the law in criminal cases.
  - supercanuck 7y ago
GordonS 7y ago
The full addendum you posted doesn't offer anything more than the Protonmail person posted - really don't see how it changes anything.

by chmars 7y ago

ziddoap 7y ago

The evidence that was presented by the author can be summarized as: "I live-tweeted it, so they said it. If they didn't, I wouldn't have live-tweeted it.". I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument, even when it's a he-said-she-said type conversation.

sebiw 7y ago
Quote from the post: > ProtonMail even mentions a current case of real-time surveillance: „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.“ By writing of a „case of clear criminal conduct“ and of „illegal activities which contravene Swiss law“, ProtonMail violates the presumption of innocence against the monitored suspects. Such suspects are of course not informed by ProtonMail about ongoing real-time surveillance measures.
- ziddoap 7y ago
  I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging. What I'm saying is that the author claims they voluntarily offer real-time logging without the need for judical intervention - per the prosecutor. The author of the article at hand later added an addendum saying the prosecutor was mis-quoted in their article [[ and that Protonmail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging.]] (Note: The part inbetween [[]] is misleading - the prosectuor does not say that. I wrote it out rather than quoted it directly, and made an error. I am leaving it in for posterity) The authors defense regarding the misquote is saying "I live tweeted it, so it happened". Whether they do or not - I'm just pointing out the weakness of the argument that "I tweeted it, so it happened"
  - sebiw 7y ago
    I think we should not think of "request" in the same way as a court order. This seems the essential difference to me. By the way: The author of the post is an attorney at law and member of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC), which makes me believe that he wouldn't falsely accuse ProtonMail.
    - ziddoap 7y ago
      As an attorney, I would expect a better substantiation than "I tweeted it, so it's true". But, fair enough regarding request vs. order. I am not familiar with Swiss law terminology. And he might be right! But to claim he is right because "I tweeted it during the conference" is, as I said, not swaying me either way.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - gwern 7y ago
    > I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging. What 'order'? All their report says is 'request'. If they had meant order, they would have said court order: in all the other cases in the transparency report, they specify if there was a court order.
wanderer2323 7y ago
From what I am seeing in the linked material, the author saw something that made his mind generate the sensational 'news'. Without bothering to check whether it's true or false he posted the generated conjecture as a fact and now is trying to defend the indefensible by attacking ProtonMail instead of posting the clarifications and apologizing. In other words, pretty much the definition of fake news.

protonmail 7y ago

From above, there is a Swiss public prosecutor, who is on the public record as saying that he "had not divulged at the above-mentioned event that ProtonMail voluntarily releases real-time data." That is a pretty conclusive statement that the reporting here is false.

chmars 7y ago
Please answer one simple question: Do you perform real-time surveillance of users? Yes or no?
- adventured 7y ago
  > Do you perform real-time surveillance of users? Yes or no? Hey ProtonMail, I'd like to see a very clear, no bullshit, Yes or No to that question. Your creditibility is being lit on fire in real-time. It'd be a good idea to clarify whether any real-time surveillence ever occurs.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    If the following conditions obtain: 1. a law permits compelling a company to produce real-time data (or anything else), 2. a company has that technical capability, and 3. the company in #2 is in a jurisdiction with a law like #1, you should assume real-time surveillance data will be provided in cases where it is so ordered. You don't need to wait for them to tell you that it is. It can go without saying. How could it be otherwise? If the guys with the guns show up to demand that data, what else are they gonna do? The Lavabits of the world are incredibly rare, for the exact same reason that Lavabit doesn't exist any more.
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    They answered your question, please read more carefully: > ProtonMail does not voluntarily offer assistance. We only do so when ordered by a Swiss court or prosecutor, as we are obligated to follow the law in criminal cases.
- supercanuck 7y ago

GordonS 7y ago

The full addendum you posted doesn't offer anything more than the Protonmail person posted - really don't see how it changes anything.