2 ms·

Yes, it is a government bluff. What will they do? When was the last time you heard a sysadmin got in jail for not keeping logs? Worst they risk is having a few

Yes, it is a government bluff. What will they do? When was the last time you heard a sysadmin got in jail for not keeping logs? Worst they risk is having a few machines seized and a fine. Unless of course they actively promote their services to the mafia or terrorist groups, which is definitely not the case. Also related, it's very important to not respect unjust laws. Laws are designed by lawmakers to oppress the people, and it takes popular organizing/revolt to make them slightly fairer. Without civil disobedience and popular self-defense, USA folks would still have legal slavery and apartheid. In the tech world, standing up to unjust laws is not uncommon. Mail providers such as Riseup are famous for standing up for their users (unless they're cryptoscammers which is not covered by the ToS). Lavabit also notoriously committed seppuku rather than rat on users. In Germany, Freifunk ISP defied all data retention laws and went all the way up to the supreme court to uphold privacy rights and not keep logs on their users. That's what i expect from a privacy-oriented service provider. In France, where data retention laws have been deemed illegal by the european court of justice , the government still insists ISPs and other service providers must spy on users. In that case, are you supposed to respect the laws of your local corrupt government, or abide by the constitution and declaration of human rights in accordance with the highest legal courts? If you're a small provider who doesn't intend to get into legal trouble, don't pretend you can protect users' privacy against unjust abuses of power. If you're a big corp like Proton, you definitely have enough resources to stand up to an obvious case of political repression. I understand and to some extent respect their decision, but it should not be framed as if they didn't have a choice!

onli 5y ago
Lavabit is really the key reference here, no reason to point to revolutions, that goes a bit far. But instead of providing the government with user data Proton had the option to stop operating the compromised email service, or if necessary to fold the company. That is what was necessary to do in this situation. Instead the caved to the (now clear to be illegal!) government request and ratted out their user. That's unacceptable for this kind of service. Also, iirc, the problem with Proton is that they did not only hand over the data, they collected the data in advance to later possibly hand them over. That would be a systemic failure.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > no reason to point to revolutions I did not exactly mention revolution, but that's an important topic. The government needs to keep tabs on everyone because they're unjust and therefore fear the mob. The only way to deal with this problem entirely is not via legal/technical means but via a global revolution that does away with "government" entirely. > they collected the data in advance to later possibly hand them over. My understanding (from previous reads) is that they had to enable IP logging precisely for this user that was targeted. If they had just done nothing, there would have been no data to give away or seize.

onli 5y ago

Lavabit is really the key reference here, no reason to point to revolutions, that goes a bit far. But instead of providing the government with user data Proton had the option to stop operating the compromised email service, or if necessary to fold the company. That is what was necessary to do in this situation. Instead the caved to the (now clear to be illegal!) government request and ratted out their user. That's unacceptable for this kind of service. Also, iirc, the problem with Proton is that they did not only hand over the data, they collected the data in advance to later possibly hand them over. That would be a systemic failure.

southerntofu 5y ago
> no reason to point to revolutions I did not exactly mention revolution, but that's an important topic. The government needs to keep tabs on everyone because they're unjust and therefore fear the mob. The only way to deal with this problem entirely is not via legal/technical means but via a global revolution that does away with "government" entirely. > they collected the data in advance to later possibly hand them over. My understanding (from previous reads) is that they had to enable IP logging precisely for this user that was targeted. If they had just done nothing, there would have been no data to give away or seize.