188
ProtonMail provides information used to identify email owner... (www.404media.co)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Awesome...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 6 months ago* (15 children)

Oh boy, their man fawning over Trump is aging like fine milk.

Proton the company that prides itself protecting privacy when it is literally the law of the country they are in. It is like a cabby advertising that they have license and insurance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Protón don’t promise anonymity If you use your credit card to pay protón services. Maybe he has to learn more about OPSEC. 🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    Please, using crypto alone isn't going to do shit. The barrier to entry for truly anonymous usage is not something most people will ever accomplish.

    Privacy is effectively dead but yet we have a company trying to advertise about it. Proton has always been marketing garbage meant to attract people's money.

    Garbage company with no ethics other than taking care of their pocket book.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    You’re mixing up privacy and anonymity. Encryption alone doesn’t make you anonymous — that’s true — but Proton never claimed it would. Their promise is that email content is end-to-end encrypted, which is why they can’t hand over the messages themselves.

    In the case reported by 404 Media, the identification came from payment information, not from breaking encryption. If you pay with a credit card, your identity is already tied to the account. That would happen with any service under a legal jurisdiction.

    The real takeaway isn’t that Proton is “garbage”, it’s that most people misunderstand what encryption actually protects.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    I was talking about both. The fact that Proton exists as a middle man to expose a customer is the reality of the situation. Do you think they score points for blaming their customer!? I really have a hard time dealing with shills for corporations.

    The real takeaway is the way Proton advertised itself was a fucking lie and now they have to spend all their time back peddling while shills like you do PR for them.

    Garbage company with to leaders who say stupid shit about politics they don't understand and make idle threats to their own government saying they are going to move like the little fascist bitches they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Proton didn’t “expose” the user by breaking encryption. According to the reporting, the identification came from payment information, which any company legally has to keep and can be compelled to provide under a court order. The email content remained encrypted.

    This isn’t unique to Proton — any service operating under a legal jurisdiction is a potential middleman if it stores identifiable data. That’s exactly why anonymity requires Tor, anonymous payments, and strict OPSEC, not just encrypted email.

    So the real lesson isn’t that encryption is fake; it’s that privacy tools don’t automatically give anonymity, and many people expect them to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Proton, if it cared, could have taken any number of steps to mitigate this problem. Like I said, they created a false image of what they provided to the public and have been back peddling ever since. I get it you don't see it that way and that you don't view yourself as a shill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    You’re still confusing two completely different things: privacy and anonymity. Encryption protects the content of messages, not every piece of metadata around an account. Proton has always been clear about that.

    In the 404 Media case, the identification came from payment information, not from Proton breaking encryption. If someone pays with a credit card, their identity is already tied to the account. That would happen with any provider under legal jurisdiction.

    Honestly, the way you’re framing this suggests you don’t really understand how encryption, metadata, and OPSEC work. Encryption ≠ anonymity. Anyone who actually works in security knows that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    I was never confused about the issue. Honestly you are just shilling for Proton.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    I’m not shilling for Proton. I’m pointing out a basic distinction you keep ignoring: encryption protects message content, not identity.

    Calling Proton’s encryption a “lie” just shows you’re arguing emotionally rather than technically. Anyone who actually understands the space knows encrypted email was never meant to guarantee anonymity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I said their marketing was a lie. Hey I get it, reading is hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I read it just fine. What you’re doing is calling it a “lie” because you expected anonymity from a tool that advertises encrypted email. Those aren’t the same thing.

    Anyone who actually understands the basics of privacy tools knows that. Your argument sounds more like frustration than a technical point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    Please, they changed their marketing and had to make several clarifications. They were deceptive to begin with. It was always dumb considering they only ever followed the law. It was never like they went above and beyond.

    Hey we are company that follows the law pick us just doesn't have the vibe that got them their business.

    I criticize the company for their practices you are playing shill pretending to "inform" me about technical issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I’m not pretending anything. You’re criticizing their marketing, I’m pointing out the technical reality behind the claims. Those are two different discussions.

    Proton’s core claim has always been encrypted email content, not immunity from legal orders. No company operating in a country can ignore the law.

    If your argument is that their marketing created unrealistic expectations, that’s a fair criticism. But calling it a “lie” and ignoring how the technology actually works doesn’t make the argument stronger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    I am here saying Proton sucks for X and Y reason. The fact that all Proton can do is blame their users rather than develop more robust practices speaks to the opposite of what got people to buy into their ecosystem to begin with

    So this is much more than their marketing. Like any corporation they suck just because they exist. As their ecosystem grows they will increase in price and enshitification will quickly set in. It is inevitable.

    Finally their leadership has made so many statements that are frankly so out of touch with reality it isn't funny. I feel sorry for people that are getting taken advantage of. Proton is just another predatory lying corporation.

    This story is yet another example of the damage this company has caused because of their carelessness. Instead of figuring out how not to store this information on their servers they choose to put their users at risk.

    There is so much wrong with this company it isn't funny. I called Telsa and Musk several years ago as garbage and I fully believe Proton is in the same vein.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    You’re free to dislike Proton, but most of what you’re describing isn’t unique to them — it’s how any service operating under a legal jurisdiction works. If a company stores payment or account data, a court can compel it. That’s true for Proton, Tuta, Gmail, or anyone else.

    Expecting a hosted email provider to somehow eliminate all legal exposure for users just isn’t realistic. If someone needs real anonymity, the solution was never a normal email service in the first place.

    Criticizing marketing or leadership is fair. But blaming Proton for the basic limits of hosted services sounds more like anger at the system than a technical critique of the product.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent