Proton Meet Isn't What They Told You It Was

https://www.sambent.com/proton-meet-isnt-what-they-told-you/

Proton Meet Isn't What They Told You It Was

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.

Sam Bent

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/

Brave Talk

Unlimited, private video calls. Right in the Brave browser.

I'm always confused by the conspiratorial takes that think there's some service out there _not_ bound by the legal system where it resides. Obviously Proton obeys the law and gives up data when it has to. Where are the services that don't do that? Somalia?

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...

Proton Mail is not for anonymity

A recent story of a Proton Mail user unmasked for Swiss authorities highlights what the company can and can’t protect

Freedom of the Press

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...

Looking back at how Signal works, as the world moves forward

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 ...

Signal Messenger
can you expand on the "loads" part? ip and payment option?
Keyword is "like": a service like Proton. No idea if and what data they have offered to their government. I was merely trying to offer an explanation to the parent commenter, who was wondering how people can critique pricacy-focused services offering data when required by law.

> 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?