4 ms·

They have already being known to log emails when enforced by the Swiss authorities: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/06/protonmail-logged-ip-address-of-french-ac

They have already being known to log emails when enforced by the Swiss authorities: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/06/protonmail-logged-ip-address-of-french-activist-after-order-by-swiss-authorities/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/06/protonmail-logged-ip-addre... https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/ https://protonmail.com/blog/transparency-report/ —— In case you trust Swiss companies blindly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-12-06/swiss-tech-company-boss-accused-of-selling-mobile-network-access-for-spying https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-12-06/swi...

ziddoap 5y ago
This is always posted like some 'gotcha', despite it being right there in the transparency report. In case you trust any company blindly: any company that wants to keep playing the money game will follow the laws forced upon them by the government they are beholden to.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  interesting way to put it, "the money game". did you see that somewhere?
  - edoceo 5y ago
    I first heard that in the 1990s. And the TV show "The Wire" (c2004?) made frequent use of the phrase "the game" to describe the process of street-dealing drugs, and the money, and the police, etc. As in "it's all in the game" - ie: all's fair in love and war.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  Isn't this what seasteading, and other jurisdiction avoidance schemes attempt to address? I wonder if anything like that has ever worked out.
  - pavel_lishin 5y ago
    I can't imagine seasteading is going to be able to avoid a nation's navy.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > I can't imagine seasteading is going to be able to avoid a nation's navy. Seasteaders: "My Libertarian non-aggression principle trumps your cruise missiles!" Navy: "No."
  - md_ 5y ago
    There seem to be two popular approaches to avoiding the need to trust institutions. One is technical: e2ee, implementation transparency, and similar. The other is social: have fewer institutions. I have never understood people who think the latter is a good approach. Like, "I don't trust these people who use their real names and are registered in a jurisdiction that has strong privacy obligations, so I'm gonna trust some randos on an abandoned oil rig instead."
themihai 5y ago
It looks like the old "Swiss secrecy" has been just marketing smoke...(see Crypto AG). I doubt any centralised entity(regardless of the country where it's hosted) can be trusted with your data. Cryptography is the only way to have some kind of assurance.
tiahura 5y ago
What would be useful would be for a Swiss attorney to explain the substantive and procedural law of the topic, and how the Swiss courts typically approach the issues.
nimbius 5y ago
S/swiss// The problem capitalist consumers have is conflating product marketing features and corporate objective statements with their own prerogatives. No corporation will ever at the users behest break a law that could impact a quarterly earnings statement. If you need more security its time to succor the haggard burro we call PGP, and enchant it with holy Bernstein's ED25519. It is hard so you will not like it. Because it is hard HN will lambasted it, turn away from its glory and call it false, but verily it is the way. because it is hard it cannot be broken easily, even by state actors, even by the gods of the market itself.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  > No corporation will ever at the users behest break a law that could impact a quarterly earnings statement. It's rare to see it, but there's a third option: shut it all down. Lavabit did this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord...
  - bgroat 5y ago
    I think this is Mullvad's stance too.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  Data that was handed over included IP addresses of access, timing of access, email subjects, email metadata, and total number of emails in the account. I'm not sure what PGP or ED25519 would do for those? The emails themselves are already encrypted.
- BalinKing 5y ago
  > No corporation will ever at the users behest break a law that could impact a quarterly earnings statement I'm not sure if I entirely understand the point you're making, but this sentence confuses me: Isn't this explicitly not the fault of capitalism, but instead government interference?

ziddoap 5y ago

This is always posted like some 'gotcha', despite it being right there in the transparency report. In case you trust any company blindly: any company that wants to keep playing the money game will follow the laws forced upon them by the government they are beholden to.

inter_netuser 5y ago
interesting way to put it, "the money game". did you see that somewhere?
- edoceo 5y ago
  I first heard that in the 1990s. And the TV show "The Wire" (c2004?) made frequent use of the phrase "the game" to describe the process of street-dealing drugs, and the money, and the police, etc. As in "it's all in the game" - ie: all's fair in love and war.
tejohnso 5y ago
Isn't this what seasteading, and other jurisdiction avoidance schemes attempt to address? I wonder if anything like that has ever worked out.
- pavel_lishin 5y ago
  I can't imagine seasteading is going to be able to avoid a nation's navy.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I can't imagine seasteading is going to be able to avoid a nation's navy. Seasteaders: "My Libertarian non-aggression principle trumps your cruise missiles!" Navy: "No."
- md_ 5y ago
  There seem to be two popular approaches to avoiding the need to trust institutions. One is technical: e2ee, implementation transparency, and similar. The other is social: have fewer institutions. I have never understood people who think the latter is a good approach. Like, "I don't trust these people who use their real names and are registered in a jurisdiction that has strong privacy obligations, so I'm gonna trust some randos on an abandoned oil rig instead."

themihai 5y ago

It looks like the old "Swiss secrecy" has been just marketing smoke...(see Crypto AG). I doubt any centralised entity(regardless of the country where it's hosted) can be trusted with your data. Cryptography is the only way to have some kind of assurance.

tiahura 5y ago

What would be useful would be for a Swiss attorney to explain the substantive and procedural law of the topic, and how the Swiss courts typically approach the issues.

nimbius 5y ago

S/swiss// The problem capitalist consumers have is conflating product marketing features and corporate objective statements with their own prerogatives. No corporation will ever at the users behest break a law that could impact a quarterly earnings statement. If you need more security its time to succor the haggard burro we call PGP, and enchant it with holy Bernstein's ED25519. It is hard so you will not like it. Because it is hard HN will lambasted it, turn away from its glory and call it false, but verily it is the way. because it is hard it cannot be broken easily, even by state actors, even by the gods of the market itself.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> No corporation will ever at the users behest break a law that could impact a quarterly earnings statement. It's rare to see it, but there's a third option: shut it all down. Lavabit did this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord...
- bgroat 5y ago
  I think this is Mullvad's stance too.
ziddoap 5y ago
Data that was handed over included IP addresses of access, timing of access, email subjects, email metadata, and total number of emails in the account. I'm not sure what PGP or ED25519 would do for those? The emails themselves are already encrypted.
BalinKing 5y ago
> No corporation will ever at the users behest break a law that could impact a quarterly earnings statement I'm not sure if I entirely understand the point you're making, but this sentence confuses me: Isn't this explicitly not the fault of capitalism, but instead government interference?