By the way, the earlier posted article https://restoreprivacy.com/protonmail-discloses-user-data-leading-to-arrest-in-spain had an update starting at the paragraph with title Update: Statement from Proton and additional commentary
“helped” is very misleading. Companies can’t refuse to provide information they have when served a search warrant / court order. These companies DID NOT choose to provide the info on their own.
“helped” is very misleading. Companies can’t refuse to provide information they have when served a search warrant / court order. These companies DID NOT choose to provide the info on their own.
You are suggesting all these companies are completely helpless against legal requests. That is not correct. A company should first make clear that the legal request is actually completely legitimate and correct. After that they can look at whether they should provide the information or not.
See the data here :
As someone who has worked fraud and online investigations, and both written and served search warrants; it is not an option. A probable cause affidavit is presented to a judge and if the judge agrees there is sufficient probable cause, a search warrant is issued. This is an order by the judge and not optional. The judge can hold the company in contempt if they refuse to obey his/her order.
Read the blog by the guy behind cock.li , he refused multiple illegitimate warrants so far.
What matters is the jurisdiction of the service, not the one of the warrant author, otherwise china would have already warranted all data of all other world citizens lol
Proton complies with Swiss law, and has to be channeled through Swiss official channels who rely the request.
So there’s jurisdiction.
That is true. But I wasn’t debating about this specific case, but rather the generalized statement.
The comment I replied to implies “If there is a warrant, it is always legitimate and you have to follow it, because a lawyer said so”. That is not true and if it were the world would quickly go to shit, which I pointed out.
I would say your interpretation was a bit extreme. Nobody implied a warrant from anywhere in the world.
Again, it doesn’t matter where the warrant fomes from. What matters is where it goes to.
And that detail is pretty important, while being completely left out. They say:
it is not an option.
But yes it is, depending on the jurisdiction.
Obligatory reminder:
Email is not a secure medium! If you need truly secure and/or anonymous communications, DON’T USE EMAIL!
Use a platform/protocol designed from the ground up for those things!
“Proton does not require a recovery address, but in this case the terror suspect added one on their own. We cannot encrypt this data as we need to be able to send an email to that address if the terror suspect wishes to initiate the recovery process,…"
I love that proton kept referring to the user as the “terror suspect” repeatedly so we would know they’re really the good guy here.
Exactly. What makes this a bit complicated and maybe interesting from a historical point of view is that this is about Spain. A country which has been very slow with removing some of the “relics” from the fascist Franco era (Franco died in 1975) and at the same time having regions that long for independence like Basque country and Catalunya (and the post topic is related to that, Catalunya aiming for independence). Since the Twin Towers attacks in 2001 the words “terror suspect” and “terrorists” have been used much more often (also by ordinary “normies” people that I knew) and maybe not always rightly so.
Thanks very much for the clarification to the context, I really appreciate it as someone who had no idea.
You’re welcome.
Why has proton written somewhere exactly what data can be handed over to police? if there is, they need to be promoting this information more
https://proton.me/legal/law-enforcement
They never said they will fight law enforcement, this is the 1000th time this happens.
If you sign up for a service using real information that can be traced to you (as in this case: home address, personal email) and then do illegal* things with the account, don’t.
The * here is that what the alleged protester allegedly did or said is irrelevant. And the article is pretty clickbaity, unless the author was unaware of how online accounts work.
OpSec fail, never ever use any personal info when you are dealing with something you don’t want to be indentified for, it include obviously recovery emails, usernames and passwords.
“Encrypted”
Yes. They never gave away content of emails, because they couldn’t even if they wanted to. It’s encrypted.
They gave the recovery email for the account to the authorities, which was an iCloud account tied to the user’s real name.
I know you’re correct about proton. Didn’t realize they were all like that.
