and with owners in the US, there's even more legal jeopardy potential. where the servers are located is less relevant than who owns them.
contrast that with Tuta, sure it's EU owned but you have to go through more layers to get to account details, and not as easily strong-armed.
though the French MS email saga from a while back makes it all muddier. French authorities will comply with requests made through the proper channels, a US judge said she didn't have to and demanded compliance - putting MS-France in non-compliance with the US court order, or non-compliance with French law.
All email providers that operate legally - including Tuta - must provide this info if they have it upon court request. If your threat model includes this risk, then having owners in a different country does not protect you at all.
To be clear, I like Tuta, but I haven't seen any evidence yet that they wouldn't be forced to do the same if they operate there.
agreed. however the reach of US courts is limited by entities that have no US ties. Tuta is still bound, and I expect that a properly processed request through German officials would result in a disclosure, but that requires a bit more rigour than I'd expect from an entity with US ties.
@cliffle @evacide All companies have to comply with the jurisdiction in which they are registered. In this case they complied with Swiss law, not the FBI directly, so the headline seems a bit misleading.
The takeaway is: If you pay for any service in a traceable way, you are not anonymous. If you want to be anonymous, consider cash or Monero.
