A court record reviewed by 404 Media shows privacy-focused email provider Proton Mail handed over payment data related to a Stop Cop City email account to the Swiss government, which handed it to the FBI.
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.
I was talking about both. The fact that Proton exists as a middle man to expose a customer is the reality of the situation. Do you think they score points for blaming their customer!? I really have a hard time dealing with shills for corporations.
The real takeaway is the way Proton advertised itself was a fucking lie and now they have to spend all their time back peddling while shills like you do PR for them.
Garbage company with to leaders who say stupid shit about politics they don’t understand and make idle threats to their own government saying they are going to move like the little fascist bitches they are.
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.
Proton, if it cared, could have taken any number of steps to mitigate this problem. Like I said, they created a false image of what they provided to the public and have been back peddling ever since. I get it you don’t see it that way and that you don’t view yourself as a shill.
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.
I’m not shilling for Proton. I’m pointing out a basic distinction you keep ignoring: encryption protects message content, not identity.
Calling Proton’s encryption a “lie” just shows you’re arguing emotionally rather than technically. Anyone who actually understands the space knows encrypted email was never meant to guarantee anonymity.
I read it just fine. What you’re doing is calling it a “lie” because you expected anonymity from a tool that advertises encrypted email. Those aren’t the same thing.
Anyone who actually understands the basics of privacy tools knows that. Your argument sounds more like frustration than a technical point.
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.
I was talking about both. The fact that Proton exists as a middle man to expose a customer is the reality of the situation. Do you think they score points for blaming their customer!? I really have a hard time dealing with shills for corporations.
The real takeaway is the way Proton advertised itself was a fucking lie and now they have to spend all their time back peddling while shills like you do PR for them.
Garbage company with to leaders who say stupid shit about politics they don’t understand and make idle threats to their own government saying they are going to move like the little fascist bitches they are.
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.
Proton, if it cared, could have taken any number of steps to mitigate this problem. Like I said, they created a false image of what they provided to the public and have been back peddling ever since. I get it you don’t see it that way and that you don’t view yourself as a shill.
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.
I was never confused about the issue. Honestly you are just shilling for Proton.
I’m not shilling for Proton. I’m pointing out a basic distinction you keep ignoring: encryption protects message content, not identity.
Calling Proton’s encryption a “lie” just shows you’re arguing emotionally rather than technically. Anyone who actually understands the space knows encrypted email was never meant to guarantee anonymity.
I said their marketing was a lie. Hey I get it, reading is hard.
I read it just fine. What you’re doing is calling it a “lie” because you expected anonymity from a tool that advertises encrypted email. Those aren’t the same thing.
Anyone who actually understands the basics of privacy tools knows that. Your argument sounds more like frustration than a technical point.