They’re a paid service with a free tier — of course they promote upgrades. That’s literally how freemium products work.
But ads for a paid plan don’t suddenly mean the privacy model is fake. By that logic every privacy service with a free tier would be “untrustworthy.”
If you prefer Tuta, fine — but pretending Proton exists only to grab money is a pretty shallow take.
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.
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.
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.
Protón don’t promise anonymity If you use your credit card to pay protón services. Maybe he has to learn more about OPSEC. 🤷♂️
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.