I don’t know about ‘should’ but wasn’t that the impression their marketing tried to give? Or at least that they would fight to defend user privacy for noble activists? But when challenged, its owners seem to have folded quicker than a strapontin.
Nothing in their marketing says they’ll refuse to comply with lawful orders.
Maybe not now, but it used to say ‘your privacy comes first’ which certainly gave the impression privacy would be more important than blindly believing and obeying courts.
For sure, I know this, but privacy does not come first for any of them and it was wrong of Proton ever to say it did. To them, their survival comes before yours, so they will betray you to the Swiss courts if needed.
So Proton should refuse to comply with the law and have to close their entire business?
I don’t know about ‘should’ but wasn’t that the impression their marketing tried to give? Or at least that they would fight to defend user privacy for noble activists? But when challenged, its owners seem to have folded quicker than a strapontin.
No. Nothing in their marketing says they’ll refuse to comply with lawful orders.
They do successfully challenge many of them. This is all documented in their transparency report.
Maybe not now, but it used to say ‘your privacy comes first’ which certainly gave the impression privacy would be more important than blindly believing and obeying courts.
Thanks for the link to their report.
Privacy is not binary. It lives on a Spectrum. On one end you have Proton and Tuta. And on the other, Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, etc.
For sure, I know this, but privacy does not come first for any of them and it was wrong of Proton ever to say it did. To them, their survival comes before yours, so they will betray you to the Swiss courts if needed.
No. The impression their marketing gave was that they followed Swiss law.