• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 2 days ago
cake
Cake day: March 7th, 2026

help-circle
  • 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.


  • 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.





  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.