3 ms·

> The safety of Protonmail has been discussed many times on HN. Lol what are you talking about specifically?

uoaei 4y ago
Probably the whole "oops we actually DO share IP addresses despite our ToS" followed by a rushed revision of the ToS to include that fact, among other recent news stories.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  This is such a disingenuous retelling of what happened. Terms of Service don't trump lawful orders issued by a government. Never have, never will, for any service or company. They were issued a lawful order, did you expect them to just close the company instead? Whether or not you use Proton before or afterwards is of no matter, but please at least try to be honest with what happened.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    > Terms of Service don't trump lawful orders issued by a government. No, obviously they do not. But misrepresenting your policies (i.e., lying) to your users ("we don't track IP addresses" was understood literally at the time) is a serious error and, especially if you're marketing to a privacy-aware crowd, one of your top priorities should be to maintain their trust or else your customer base is going to fall out from under you. What's disingenuous is implying that lawful orders trump the ethics of lying to your customer base, when saying "we don't track IPs..." but meaning "...until the government asks us to".
    - ziddoap 4y ago
      To be clear, the part of the original post that I took issue with is this: >Probably the whole "oops we actually DO share IP addresses despite our ToS" Which conveniently left out the fact that they shared it when required to by lawful order. The way this is phrased (more, the intentional omission of that detail) implies that Proton is continuously sharing IP addresses with whomever asks for it. If you don't think that is a disingenuous way to relay the incident, I don't know what to say, we're probably at an impasse. They way you've relayed it is a more honest characterization of the incident, and one I don't take much issue with. I would note that a small amount of networking knowledge would make the "until the government asks us to" part implied. A quick look at the user settings (specifically, the "Advanced logs" toggle) would also make it abundantly clear that Proton has the ability to track IP addresses upon request. Does that mean Proton is entirely off the hook? Of course not. But people should make decisions and come to their own conclusions based on all of the facts, not statements that omit material details.

Probably the whole "oops we actually DO share IP addresses despite our ToS" followed by a rushed revision of the ToS to include that fact, among other recent news stories.

ziddoap 4y ago
This is such a disingenuous retelling of what happened. Terms of Service don't trump lawful orders issued by a government. Never have, never will, for any service or company. They were issued a lawful order, did you expect them to just close the company instead? Whether or not you use Proton before or afterwards is of no matter, but please at least try to be honest with what happened.
- uoaei 4y ago
  > Terms of Service don't trump lawful orders issued by a government. No, obviously they do not. But misrepresenting your policies (i.e., lying) to your users ("we don't track IP addresses" was understood literally at the time) is a serious error and, especially if you're marketing to a privacy-aware crowd, one of your top priorities should be to maintain their trust or else your customer base is going to fall out from under you. What's disingenuous is implying that lawful orders trump the ethics of lying to your customer base, when saying "we don't track IPs..." but meaning "...until the government asks us to".
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    To be clear, the part of the original post that I took issue with is this: >Probably the whole "oops we actually DO share IP addresses despite our ToS" Which conveniently left out the fact that they shared it when required to by lawful order. The way this is phrased (more, the intentional omission of that detail) implies that Proton is continuously sharing IP addresses with whomever asks for it. If you don't think that is a disingenuous way to relay the incident, I don't know what to say, we're probably at an impasse. They way you've relayed it is a more honest characterization of the incident, and one I don't take much issue with. I would note that a small amount of networking knowledge would make the "until the government asks us to" part implied. A quick look at the user settings (specifically, the "Advanced logs" toggle) would also make it abundantly clear that Proton has the ability to track IP addresses upon request. Does that mean Proton is entirely off the hook? Of course not. But people should make decisions and come to their own conclusions based on all of the facts, not statements that omit material details.