Sibling comment rightfully points out that a legitimate company will follow the laws. Proton is a legitimate company, so they follow the laws. This is detailed in their published threat model:
"“The Internet is generally not anonymous, and if you are breaking Swiss law, a law-abiding company such as Proton Mail can be legally compelled to log your IP address.” This cannot be changed due to how the internet works. However, we understand this is concerning for individuals with certain threat models, which is why since 2017, we also provide an onion site for anonymous access (we are one of the only email providers that supports this)."
And, in the case you are presumably talking about, Proton took it through the courts and ended up getting a ruling that "email services are not telecommunications providers. Consequently, email services are not subject to the data retention requirements imposed on telecommunications providers and are exempted from handing over certain user data in response to Swiss legal orders"
Which paints an incredibly different story than the one you are trying to paint.
Third, emails weren't handed over (nor were files, calendars, etc.). Which is another important distinction your comment does not mention.
Why parrot half of a story disparaging one of the only large email providers that fights in court to protect the privacy of its users?
I was aware of the story beforehand. The context you've pasted here hasn't changed the intent of my statement, but I'm glad you took the time to type it.
> Third, emails weren't handed over
That they weren't, however the information that was handed over was enough to identify the target.
> Why parrot half of a story disparaging one of the only large email providers that fights in court to protect the privacy of its users?
Because despite their apparent and commendable work in trying to preserve the privacy of their users, they have regretfully failed to do so in the past, and it will more than likely proceed that way in the future.
It's not that I want to badmouth their efforts, but it has tainted them so I think it would be wrong not to bring it up. An email provider that has never divulged info (of which several exist) isn't tainted the same way as one that has. It may only be a difference of time and scale, but it's your freedom of choice, and I think freedom of choice is a very important thing. Email is decentralized, and the more email providers that exist and hold themselves to high standards the better. If more people moved between or started smaller email providers, it would help relieve these kinds of issues.
If you believe "freedom of choice is a very important thing", you shouldn't have written your comment the way you did -- stripped of all detail and purely negative, as an attempt to make the decision for the readers.
Instead, you should have mentioned the context, and allowed people to come to their own conclusions. Your quote: "Because despite their apparent and commendable work in trying to preserve the privacy of their users, they have regretfully failed to do so in the past, and it will more than likely proceed that way in the future." alongside a bit more detail would have been a fantastic comment, instead of the vague accusatory one-liner you wrote.
Since I don't consider it my job to provide context or be constructive, I let other people like you do it for me. I might follow up on it, as is my freedom of choice, but since I can't guarantee that happening I tend to do things that way. See, isn't that a fun system? I've augmented my own freedom with yours!
How do you expect businesses to operate if they do not comply with legal requirements?
Proton is obligated to cooperate with authorities just like any other company. Proton has a distinction in that it also takes certain cases to court when it argues there is no legal justification.
