• Proton VPN has hit back at Canada’s proposed Bill C-22
• The proposed legislation could require VPNs to log user metadata
• NordVPN and Windscribe have also slammed the bill
• Proton VPN has hit back at Canada’s proposed Bill C-22
• The proposed legislation could require VPNs to log user metadata
• NordVPN and Windscribe have also slammed the bill
What long history of capitulation?
@Photonic@lemmy.world, if you already knew Proton had a history of capitulation, why did you ask? Especially when the next thing you did was pretend it didn’t matter.
Mate, I sense a lot of anger in you. Try to calm down a bit. I’m not the enemy here. I want privacy just as much as you do.
Your definition of capitulation is a bit (and by a bit, I mean very much) exaggerated.
“Mate,” you got an answer to your question, but opted to brush it off in several ways. If you did care, take it up with Proton and stop being disingenuous here.
Disingenuous? The only disingenuous thing is calling someone else disingenuous just because they have a different opinion. Don’t ever call me disingenuous, because that’s not what I am.
Your definition of capitulation is absurd and the way you’re going into this discussion is nothing more than Trump-like and scummy. Kindly fuck off with your pedantic and paediatric behaviour and leave the grown-ups be.
Photonic, you are the poster child for disingenuous behavior. Upon being shown proof that Proton misleads its customers, your only retort was that they shouldn’t have to.
Really, what part of my behaviour is disingenuous?
And I know what I said, you don’t need to link me to my own comment.
Your mind is just too simplistic to comprehend a simple concept. That doesn’t make me disingenuous, no matter how hard you try.
Any service out there that would not comply with these orders, is a service that could not legally operate in these countries.
Direct your ire to Proton’s false advertising on their homepage!
Nowhere in that paragraph says that they will ignore the law.
mabeledo, the links prove they don’t bother practicing what they preach. They don’t even try, until public pressure gets too hot. You don’t need to be a corporate shill.
What a childish take.
Proton cannot operate outside of the law. Swiss laws may be privacy friendly, but that does not imply that court orders can be ignored.
But if you think so, then please name a single entity that after not complying with a court order, was still allowed to continue operations or was not fined.
You know that it’s possible to push back against surveillance without committing crimes.
Stop being so disingenuous with the false dichotomies.
I think I have asked a very clear cut question. Will patiently wait for your answer.
Well, I know there are some cases. But they are still bound by Swiss law, or soon they will not have a company anymore.
It’s not perfect on privacy, but I wouldn’t call it “capitulation” either.
Proton’s homepage has a very different take on Swiss law.
And a very different public message about whether they would capitulate vs defending your freedom.
Well that’s actually what I said, isn’t it? Swiss law, which they have to abide by. Some of the strongest in the world, but not airtight for people who commit crimes.
The laws protect the company and the users privacy to a certain extent, but that also means Proton have the responsibility to uphold that law, or the law will be meaningless.
Getting into trouble by repeatedly purposely breaking the law is probably the easiest way for a company to get disbanded. No other companies will work with you, your server contracts will not be extended and you won’t get anything done.
And neutral is also probably a lawful type of neutral, judging from the many times they mention the law :)
It’s the exact opposite. Proton says Swiss law backs you. You say that Swiss law binds them to be against you.
If Proton said what you said, they wouldn’t be guilty of false advertising.
I never said that.
Being backed by the law also means working within the confinements of the law.
They’re not falsely advertising if they don’t specifically mention they are not going to break the law.
I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept for you.
They don’t say that, now do they?
Why would they have to?
Do they really have to specify when they cite the law that that the law works for them exactly like it does for everyone else?
They never say they are above the law or will break the law either. Now that would be false advertising.