4 ms·
> thinking about it now in retrospect, do you think that really could have been a possibility? The only thing I am saying is that if real privacy is not a poss
by smnrchrds 5y ago
> thinking about it now in retrospect, do you think that really could have been a possibility?
The only thing I am saying is that if real privacy is not a possibility (and it may very well not be), they shouldn't pretend they are selling real privacy. I am not saying they should find a way to do the impossible and legally avoid laws. I am saying they should not pretend their service is any more private than it actually is.
Think of it this way: imagine someone starts advertising a magic potion that stops aging. People buy it, but they predictably continue to age and die. If someone starts protesting, we shouldn't say "what are you complaining about? what do you want the seller to do? break the laws of nature? that's ridiculous." We should say, "we really should stop that guy from making baseless promises about his potions".
- fsckboy 5y agoif they are making a good faith effort to give all the real privacy you can expect, I don't think they have a particular duty to water down their marketing messages by going into distracting detail that criminals shouldn't have the same expectations. They did disclose within their terms that they don't by default keep logs, and they do need to comply with court orders.
- istingray 5y agoAssuming people who really use their services are criminals is like assuming someone who cares about a car's details is an illegal street racer. I use Protonmail to provide tools for journalists, teachers, and whistleblowers, and people who are in danger from folks who mark them "criminals".