4 ms·

Calling that "caving in" is problematic, even defamation. They had a legal order from the court to log the IP next time that user logged in. If they hadn't comp

Calling that "caving in" is problematic, even defamation. They had a legal order from the court to log the IP next time that user logged in. If they hadn't complied who knows what the swiss government would've done to Proton. Proton is a company afterall and has to adhere to jts legal boundaries, if it doesnt it soon won't have legak boundaries because the government uses its tools to make sure there is no Proton anymore.

throwawayswede 5y ago
No it’s not, caved in is the exact perfect word that should be used. Specifically considering the language they used in their promotional material. It is exactly because they’re a company and they must know that they will have to comply with laws that apply on them that they should’ve either not used that wording in their promos or not cave in to legal requirements. Saying they caved in is putting it mildly. You can even say the purposely misled their customers, and as of now, have not exactly owned up to it yet. Edit: I’m also sick of the usage of the word problematic. Using problematic is problematic itself.
- EE84M3i 5y ago
  What action would you have not considered "caving in"?
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    Stick by their supposed principles, or at least spend money to defend the dude they exposed. Basically they fucked up majorly regarding this specific person and they should spend however much to fight the chaos they have caused.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    “We’ll see you in court.”
  - maxwell 5y ago
    Telling the Swiss gestapo to come and take it instead of just following orders.
aspenmayer 5y ago
Proton should design their software and services to “fail closed” and utilize technology and policies to prevent ever being exposed to user IPs to prevent holding this data in the first place. They could daisy chain TOR nodes, perhaps. I’m open to ideas on that front. tl;dr: Proton failed their customer by designing their service in such a way that this PII disclosure was possible. That they folded under legal pressure instead of calling any government’s bluff shows that they are willing to compromise their own systems at their users’ expense, and get paid for the privilege. Their customers deserve better.
- beermonster 5y ago
  > Proton should design their software and services to “fail closed” They do have this design for their VPN if you enable their killswitch feature.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    That is client side. I meant server side, as well.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Your wording "Calling any government’s bluff" implies that this was a bluff, however, that's not the case - if the cards come to table, it's obvious that "their cards" are weaker and the government can actually force them to compromise their systems, it's not a bluff, it's not a winnable contest. In this case, after receiving a valid order, implementing any technology or policies to thwart it would be a felony, you're required to cooperate. If you appeal the ruling, you're still required to comply with the ruling and collect data during the appeal process. Also, technical solutions don't fix social problems. They could daisy chain TOR nodes to avoid collecting information by default, however, a valid warrant for a specific user (as in that previous case you seem to allude to) can easily require them to avoid all those technical solutions, add extra information collection and intentionally circumvent these TOR nodes for this one particular user to break their privacy - no matter if they're willing or not. If they're not willing to compromise their own systems, then the only solution is to not run those systems at all and shut down the service e.g. as Lavabit did, because you can be (both legally and practically) forced to compromise your systems.

throwawayswede 5y ago

No it’s not, caved in is the exact perfect word that should be used. Specifically considering the language they used in their promotional material. It is exactly because they’re a company and they must know that they will have to comply with laws that apply on them that they should’ve either not used that wording in their promos or not cave in to legal requirements. Saying they caved in is putting it mildly. You can even say the purposely misled their customers, and as of now, have not exactly owned up to it yet. Edit: I’m also sick of the usage of the word problematic. Using problematic is problematic itself.

EE84M3i 5y ago
What action would you have not considered "caving in"?
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  Stick by their supposed principles, or at least spend money to defend the dude they exposed. Basically they fucked up majorly regarding this specific person and they should spend however much to fight the chaos they have caused.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  “We’ll see you in court.”
- maxwell 5y ago
  Telling the Swiss gestapo to come and take it instead of just following orders.

aspenmayer 5y ago

Proton should design their software and services to “fail closed” and utilize technology and policies to prevent ever being exposed to user IPs to prevent holding this data in the first place. They could daisy chain TOR nodes, perhaps. I’m open to ideas on that front. tl;dr: Proton failed their customer by designing their service in such a way that this PII disclosure was possible. That they folded under legal pressure instead of calling any government’s bluff shows that they are willing to compromise their own systems at their users’ expense, and get paid for the privilege. Their customers deserve better.

beermonster 5y ago
> Proton should design their software and services to “fail closed” They do have this design for their VPN if you enable their killswitch feature.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  That is client side. I meant server side, as well.
PeterisP 5y ago
Your wording "Calling any government’s bluff" implies that this was a bluff, however, that's not the case - if the cards come to table, it's obvious that "their cards" are weaker and the government can actually force them to compromise their systems, it's not a bluff, it's not a winnable contest. In this case, after receiving a valid order, implementing any technology or policies to thwart it would be a felony, you're required to cooperate. If you appeal the ruling, you're still required to comply with the ruling and collect data during the appeal process. Also, technical solutions don't fix social problems. They could daisy chain TOR nodes to avoid collecting information by default, however, a valid warrant for a specific user (as in that previous case you seem to allude to) can easily require them to avoid all those technical solutions, add extra information collection and intentionally circumvent these TOR nodes for this one particular user to break their privacy - no matter if they're willing or not. If they're not willing to compromise their own systems, then the only solution is to not run those systems at all and shut down the service e.g. as Lavabit did, because you can be (both legally and practically) forced to compromise your systems.