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.
Yep, which I think is why it’s more important to see what data is being collected and stored, rather than giving up data based on how trustworthy an entity seems
If the tool doesn’t collect or log the data to begin with, then there’s nothing that can be stolen/taken/demanded
The solution in this case might be for Proton (and the other companies) to list out risks and data collection information along the way.
We need X in order to do Y. Read more on how Y works. Now here are some risks, and how to avoid them:
“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.
