this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
66 points (80.6% liked)

Privacy

2643 readers
221 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I heard people claim for some time that Proton supports the Trump administration. I've only ever really seen the claim made based on a single tweet.

This person did a pretty deep dive and comes to the conclusion that they don't, nor does their CEO.

I'm not saying I know what's in that guy's head, nor do I want to. But I'm wary of coming to an extreme conclusion about someone because of a couple of sentences that person wrote online.

https://io.waxandleather.com/users/alisynthesis/statuses/115245340493250991

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theskyisfalling@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This article should be pinned to the sidebar to be referenced every time people jump on the "omg proton so bad" bandwagon based on one out of context excerpt from that tweet that everyone seems to love to bring up but without actually doing any further research into the subject.

Hopefully people will actually read this and adjust their opinions accordingly rather than just repeatedly jumping on that stupid, ill informed bandwagon!

[–] entwine@programming.dev 23 points 1 week ago

This article was written by an anonymous/throwaway Medium account. For all we know, it was written by a PR firm they hired. Corporate propaganda has zero credibility, and the anonymity makes it impossible to verify that it's anything else.

And if anything, now that time has proven that Trump/Vance were, in fact, worse than everyone was saying, it's further reason to hate Proton for using their influence/reach to support them. Did it help them win the whitehouse? Hard to say, but even in the best case scenario, it comes off as a lame, opportunistic move to advertise their services to MAGA and profit off political turmoil.

[–] IceFoxX@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

Protons history

They are less bad than other providers, but there is still enough to criticize. For example, the fact that their claims always pretend otherwise or when you ask support about it, it is directly and vehemently denied.

I don't want to call for a boycott. After all, I use Proton myself and am satisfied, but

Is Proton Mail still secure and private?

The answer to this question all boils down to determining your threat model and the adversaries you are trying to protect yourself against.

In short, the answer is yes if you are looking for a secure, encrypted email service that does not have access to the contents of your inbox. After all, ProtonMail is far better than Gmail or Yahoo when it comes to privacy.

If you are doing things to attract the attention of law enforcement, then the data you provide when you use ProtonMail, such as IP address and recovery email, may be shared with authorities if Proton Technologies is legally compelled to do so in Swiss court.

[–] RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today 15 points 1 week ago

Stop calling text published on Medium 'articles'. Literally anyone can sign up and write on that site.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a lot more to distrust about Proton than one tweet. For example, they assisted a fascist government persecution of environmental activists.

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

For example, they assisted a fascist government persecution of environmental activists.

I don't know a ton about that situation, but if you stick to the facts and stop going off wild speculation (like so many here love to do), you can start to understand the "why" of that situation. A journalist's accounts were blocked because a CERT (separate from Proton - they are all over the world) reported them to Proton. The accounts weren't even deleted. They were, in fact, reinstated.

The only facts we know:

  1. The journalist's timeline
  2. Proton's response

That's it. That's all the information we have.

Look at it through the lens of Occam's Razor:

  • The CERT/Proton maliciously targeted this journalist, OR
  • The CERT recognized a usage pattern similar to that of a malicious actor, passed that information to Proton, and Proton acted accordingly

Which of those is more likely?

If I ran an email server that provided encrypted email, knowing 1) that potentially malicious actors could be using it, 2) that I could be prosecuted for allowing malicious activity via my services, and 3) that I was informed of potentially malicious activity by an organization that specifically deals with that kind of thing - I would preemptively block those accounts as well. You would too - don't lie to yourself.

Regarding the "ghosting":
My guess is that Proton probably has a policy or something in place preventing their "normal" support from even speaking to owners of blocked accounts when Legal (or CERT, in this case) is involved - just like almost every other company that has customer support. Which would quite easily explain why Proton took the "shoot first ask questions later" approach. And when Proton was inevitably called out by the owner in question, who turned out to be a non-malicious person? That's probably when Proton leadership actually got wind of the situation and decided they could reinstate the accounts. In nearly every company, leadership is almost never involved with customer support until it becomes high-visibility - like being called out on social media.

I could be totally off here, but again, I'm only going off of the facts of the situation and what I know about cybersecurity practices (having some experience there myself).

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

Not exactly but yes. And that was another case where Proton did a sorta unforced error, not to mention they basically confirmed that they can associate and profile people across accounts. Which already puts an important dent on their claims about privacy.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think they were meaning the case when they were handing over information to the french authorities for an investigation about a journalist. but I can't blame them for that, they do not stand above the law. if they didn't comply they would have been sued or shut down

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oh, was that the one where they handed over just an IP address because that's all they had?

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

yeah I think.

but to be fair that's not all they have. as I know mail titles are not encrypted either, maybe attachments too but not sure about that.