3 ms·

>AT&T, Google, Apple, Comcast, Verizon, ... Really? I understand that they fight court orders when they feel they need to, which Proton at least claims to do a

>AT&T, Google, Apple, Comcast, Verizon, ... Really? I understand that they fight court orders when they feel they need to, which Proton at least claims to do as well (have not verified that, though), but they get away with just... ignoring them? Or not complying after losing an appeal? I stand corrected if that is the case. >With sufficient resources and clout Does Proton have the clout to do so? I don't believe they do, which makes me wonder why it's such an unpopular opinion to believe exactly what you said ("No company will (or even should) stick their neck out for you personally.") when it comes to Proton.

metadat 4y ago
tl;dr: The climate is heading towards the best option being to need as little privacy as possible. Corporations and their employees have learned clever techniques to get away with "complying" without really complying in instances where they're sufficiently motivated. It's not always politically feasible, but is in many cases. A quick (and ironic) Google search for "google lawsuit federal compliance" turns up many instances: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop... These violations are all calculated risks on their part. Internally, they intentionally keep certain communications off of email to ensure it will never be discoverable through a legal process. It's not like Big-G is the only one, do you think this is ubiquitously commonplace across the megacorps in virtually every industry in the United States? Here's what happens when they come for your / our data: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists-us-subpoena-of-search-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists... > even as three of its competitors agreed to provide information > Rather than seeking data on individuals, it says it is trying to establish a profile of Internet use that will help it defend the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law that would impose tough criminal penalties on individuals whose Web sites carried material deemed harmful to minors.

metadat 4y ago

tl;dr: The climate is heading towards the best option being to need as little privacy as possible. Corporations and their employees have learned clever techniques to get away with "complying" without really complying in instances where they're sufficiently motivated. It's not always politically feasible, but is in many cases. A quick (and ironic) Google search for "google lawsuit federal compliance" turns up many instances: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop... These violations are all calculated risks on their part. Internally, they intentionally keep certain communications off of email to ensure it will never be discoverable through a legal process. It's not like Big-G is the only one, do you think this is ubiquitously commonplace across the megacorps in virtually every industry in the United States? Here's what happens when they come for your / our data: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists-us-subpoena-of-search-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/google-resists... > even as three of its competitors agreed to provide information > Rather than seeking data on individuals, it says it is trying to establish a profile of Internet use that will help it defend the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law that would impose tough criminal penalties on individuals whose Web sites carried material deemed harmful to minors.