• 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

  • Photonic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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 :)

    • XLE@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      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.

      • Photonic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • XLE@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Being backed by the law also means working within the confinements of the law.

          They don’t say that, now do they?

          • Photonic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            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.