Proton Meet Isn't What They Told You It Was
https://www.sambent.com/proton-meet-isnt-what-they-told-you/
Proton built Proton Meet to escape the CLOUD Act. They built it on CLOUD Act infrastructure. Their website promises "not even government agencies" can access your calls. The company routing them hands your call records to the government when asked. Proton hid them from their privacy policy.
After Proton has repeatedly turned over users of their email account to law enforcement, always with many excuses, their claims about no ability for any government to see what's going on on their network ran very hollow.
I know Brave has offered their talk video conferencing service for awhile, but I don't know if any serious network analysis has been performed on it.
https://talk.brave.com/
For document collaboration, I'm not aware of much else that's private/encrypted (etc) however.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/document-collaboration/
Privacy and anonymity are not the same.
I am fundamentally against spyware that constantly monitors you and reports anything. Because of the constant and pre crime nature of it.
On the other hand i am actually not fundamentally against turning over data when independent judges sign a warrant.
This is arguably a very tight rope to walk but i think thats the most realistic comporomise between my right to privacy and the right of others to get justice when something is done onto them.
Perhaps you may not remember the US government's tendency to invade privacy for suspicious reasons (that is, at the very least extra-legal and sometimes downright unconstitutional).
You mentioned a warrant. I do not believe that has been a required threshold.
E.g.,
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/jordan-biggs-d...
I mean, is it really a conspiracy theory to want or believe that there are services (based in Europe) that don't hand over any and all user data to the USA government when asked? It's probably wrong to believe it to be the case, but just because it's wrong doesn't make it "conspiratorial".
It's quite hypocritical of Proton to claim that they protect against government surveillance when they do things like this though [0]. Their legal team has probably ensured they don't claim anything strictly false, but the implication and the reality are wildly different.
[0] https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/proton-mail-is-not-for-an...
I think the key difference is the amount of data the service can offer when it is asked to do so by some legal entity. Signal famously claims to barely have any useful data to turn over when ordered to do so [1]. If some provider like Proton states they are pricacy-focused and protect your data from governments, but can still offer loads of your private data when ordered to, that damages their privacy claim.
[1] https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-as-the-world-moves-forw...
In the midst of world-wide protests against racism and police brutality, a lot of people are becoming more immediately aware and concerned about the security of their data and online communication. We’ve gotten a lot of questions at Signal over the past week, so we wanted to briefly recap how it ...
> If some provider like Proton states they are pricacy-focused and protect your data from governments, but can still offer loads of your private data when ordered to, that damages their privacy claim.
"Loads" of private data? When has this allegedly happened or how would it technically even be possible?
I think this comment deserves some nuance. Every company has to comply to local laws. Unless you want to run something illegal, at which point it's not a very reliable alternative for all your mail and more.
Proton in some cases was forced to turn over whatever they knew of a few accounts, according to Swiss law. They try to obfuscate as much as possible, so they can't turn over complete e-mail conversations. But some info is in there, and they have to turn that over. But (correct me if I'm wrong) they have to only comply to Swiss law, when there's a court order.
bundie
