These bits are really the problematic ones, moreso than what Protonmail did. The slow expansion of 'terrorism' to mean 'literally any illegal activity' is a dangerous, dangerous thing.
This case is particularly noteworthy because it involves a series of requests across different jurisdictions and companies, highlighting the complex interplay between technology firms, user privacy, and law enforcement.
The requests were made under the guise of anti-terrorism laws, despite the primary activities of the Democratic Tsunami involving protests and roadblocks, which raises questions about the proportionality and justification of such measures.
These bits are really the problematic ones, moreso than what Protonmail did. The slow expansion of 'terrorism' to mean 'literally any illegal activity' is a dangerous, dangerous thing.
There's a reason we treat armed robbery differently from shoplifting. It's reasonably justifiable to allow more leeway on civil rights encroachment in order to stop mass killings of innocent...
There's a reason we treat armed robbery differently from shoplifting.
It's reasonably justifiable to allow more leeway on civil rights encroachment in order to stop mass killings of innocent civilians.
It's much less so calling protestors, even disruptive ones, terrorists. And, in the USA, it's exactly this sort of behavior that was being warned about as far back as The Patriot Act after 9/11 (probably further, but that was the first in my adult life).
And the problem being that laws passed to help against terrorists will get warped over time if it's convenient for law enforcement.
I really disagree. Power is abused. You hand power over to someone, like a government, sure the guy or department right now says something like "it's only for this purpose, just that, and come on...
I really disagree. Power is abused. You hand power over to someone, like a government, sure the guy or department right now says something like "it's only for this purpose, just that, and come on it's a really good purpose."
Then that guy leaves. Or someone changes his mind. Or gets installed above him and overrules him. Or her. And so on. And other people go "well, we already have this power, so why aren't we using it?" So they do.
Years ago, way back before electronic anything had even started to become the shitshow it is now, New York installed electronic tracking into the bridge crossings and toll roads and all that. They did it only for billing purposes, so people could pay in an orderly fashion without having to stop at the booth. Have you paid your tolls? Then you can travel. Haven't and you're in the lanes or through the no-stop crossings? We send you fines.
Sounds reasonable. And even is.
Then the NYPD showed up with a request they'd been handed by a prosecutor. "We have a murder suspect, and we need to check his alibi." There was an initial pushback to handing over the information. Privacy. "But it's murder!" was the push-pushback. "Do you want murderers to go free?"
It's tough to argue against that, especially since everyone starts piping up with "yeah, fuck murderers."
So the toll authorities lost the fight, and handed the information over.
And within a year or two, the NYPD just routinely checked everyone they were investigating against toll records. Like, it was standard. The same as they pull phone records and so on. Get accused of something, and your movements are free game.
Keep in mind, this was before everyone began carrying around a locator device in their pocket. The phone knows where you are within a few feet, all the time. Or, at least, it knows where it is. And you're usually carrying the phone. If the phone's moving and being used, it's gonna take a genius lawyer (even if it's true) to manage to convince anyone that you weren't the one carrying your phone around. Plus they don't just check the location (bad enough), they pull the entire record so all your texts and posts and all that, open book. The only reason they don't have a record of the actual voice calls is that's not something the system tracks.
Yet.
Wait until some corp or phone company or whoever institutes some AI system that'll automatically index and record all your calls. They'll bill it as a convenience. "Tired of forgetting stuff? Want automatic integration with your calendar and so on? Just don't say no, don't uncheck this box, and we'll take care of the rest." Suddenly cops won't even have to ask "what were you talking about on these dates to this person?" They'll have full transcripts and recordings.
So now everyone has an electronic leash. And it's already been established all over the country that all police and prosecutors have to say is "but crime" and presto, every single movement of yours is up for scrutiny.
It always starts small. And with something "obvious." Like "for the children."
Privacy has no meaning if you poke seventeen thousand exceptions through the firewall that's supposed to shield it. The exceptions are always framed as reasonable and for a good purpose. Then, once they're established, those exceptions just become the norm and things get funneled through those holes.
Due process is supposed to examine each exception, every time, for a reason. To ensure there's no other way, that there is other evidence indicating there's a need to breach the wall and allow the leak to happen this time.
Except what's the number one thing you'll hear from a cop or prosecutor? "We don't have time for that." They hate rules. They hate "procedure." They just want carte blanche. So does the government. They'll always have a good story, but once they ram an exception through, that exception becomes standard and opens the floodgate.
Cue the people below me saying "so you want terrorists to get away with it" or "you want murderers to walk free."
Which is a strawman designed to move the point away from privacy and toward something you can't win against. What I want is rules, laws, to be followed. And those laws should not be written to turn citizens who have been convicted of no crime, or indicted of no crime absent actual evidence into suspects who have no privacy.
"We think this guy is going to do (insert excuse) stuff so we want his entire life opened to us." Okay, why do you think that? "Well, we just do, so open up. All the data, right now, and hurry the fuck up about it too."
That should not be good enough. But it often is.
Privacy advocates always get eyes rolled at them. Get heavy sighs of exasperation. People accuse them of wanting to enable anarchy and allow chaos to reign.
Then the same fucking eye rolling heavy sighing folks wonder how and why they're getting ads and coupons for baby formula when their sister only told them four hours ago she's expecting. Or, worse, wonder why they're sitting in an interrogation room and only later find out it's something stupid like "well you were in the same forum with this guy we're sure is bad, and traded messages with him, explain that."
To be clear, I generally agree with you. My phrasing was intended to highlight that determining the rules for society requires compromises, and that thresholds differ based on severity, as is the...
To be clear, I generally agree with you. My phrasing was intended to highlight that determining the rules for society requires compromises, and that thresholds differ based on severity, as is the case for many, many other things. Few people would disagree with the Amber alert system as implemented, but there's probably be a lot more if it was used primarily for arresting parking violators.
That said, I don't particularly have a problem with toll data being collected and disclosed as part of a warrant or trial proceedings, in part because cars in particular are already a highly-regulated sector. It would have been acceptable to subpoena a gas station for video footage to do the same.
My bigger problems are things like Ring that enable mass-dragnet levels of surveillance to be pulled up on a whim due to the centralization of the service.
And the biggest problem being that pretty much all of government is willing to rubber-stamp or ignore processes that were intended to be the proper 'gating' like warrants.
as with the previous arrest, I blame this more on the user than protonmail. they have no choice but to comply with a legal request for information they have and never claimed that they wouldn't.
as with the previous arrest, I blame this more on the user than protonmail. they have no choice but to comply with a legal request for information they have and never claimed that they wouldn't.
I use Protonmail. The service they’re selling is private email (they block trackers very well) and secure encryption for messages they hold. If this news indicated they actually have the emails in...
I use Protonmail. The service they’re selling is private email (they block trackers very well) and secure encryption for messages they hold. If this news indicated they actually have the emails in plain text or that they are willing to install backdoors in their software I would have a problem with that. But they only helped to ID the owner by proxy.
My protonmail address is my full legal name. So I’m a different type of customer than the person the police were after.
Honest question - how is the added security that Protonmail offers actually useful? E-mail is an inherently insecure medium, and all of the added inconveniences in the world seem like they...
Honest question - how is the added security that Protonmail offers actually useful? E-mail is an inherently insecure medium, and all of the added inconveniences in the world seem like they wouldn't amount to much given that the people you're sending and receiving mail from are likely using traditional services like Gmail and Outlook.
You're right that most of the time there will be an insecurely stored copy on a 3rd party email server. But at least my email host isn't going to be the weakest link. Now all of my emails go from...
You're right that most of the time there will be an insecurely stored copy on a 3rd party email server. But at least my email host isn't going to be the weakest link. Now all of my emails go from 2 points of entry to 1 (well, 1-ish... nothing is un-hackable). And in the case of email within Proton Mail there is full end-to-end encryption.
The main day-to-day benefit is the automatic tracker blocking - on my phone, on the web client, etc. They even proxy images so that I can view them without the sender getting my IP address. Generally I'm happy with the quality of the service. Because I want a custom domain I need to pay for email hosting anyway.
Quick nitpick: Protonmail is not end to end encrypted. It's only providing an encrypted lockbox to store your emails. E2E only happens if both parties are encrypting/decrypting message content...
Quick nitpick: Protonmail is not end to end encrypted. It's only providing an encrypted lockbox to store your emails.
E2E only happens if both parties are encrypting/decrypting message content before sending using PGP or equivalent.
It's a great service, I use it myself, but everyone should be aware its limitations.
So, I had heard that marketing claim and had hand-waved it away. I never really followed up on understanding their PGP integration, and I gotta say that's pretty awesome. You can apparently even...
So, I had heard that marketing claim and had hand-waved it away. I never really followed up on understanding their PGP integration, and I gotta say that's pretty awesome. You can apparently even integrate external users as well by manually attaching the public key.
In the OP's case, the literal weak link was their e-mail address hosted at Proton, and the government didn't need to know the contents of their e-mails or make use of a state-sponsored backdoor in...
You're right that most of the time there will be an insecurely stored copy on a 3rd party email server. But at least my email host isn't going to be the weakest link.
In the OP's case, the literal weak link was their e-mail address hosted at Proton, and the government didn't need to know the contents of their e-mails or make use of a state-sponsored backdoor in order to make an arrest.
I suppose I'm wondering what threat profile Proton's added security and privacy is designed to protect against? It's always nice for a service to be more secure by default, but if the cost is being incompatible with standards like IMAP and CalDAV1 and the apps that use them, I'm not sure that the juice is worth the squeeze.
1I am aware that there is an IMAP shim you can run on the desktop, but it seems like the only way to interface with Proton on mobile is through their official app.
The weakness was that they added a separate insecure and identifiable email as their recovery email for their Proton account. There are many ways to use almost all privacy tools in ways that will...
the literal weak link was their e-mail address hosted at Proton
The weakness was that they added a separate insecure and identifiable email as their recovery email for their Proton account. There are many ways to use almost all privacy tools in ways that will lower or completely remove their privacy protections. It pays to be aware of them, especially if you know you're going to be targeted by a government agency.
For me using a 3rd party email client isn’t important at all. I’m not trying to hide my existence. But I might get private info sent to my email address.
For me using a 3rd party email client isn’t important at all.
I’m not trying to hide my existence. But I might get private info sent to my email address.
My wife and my friends also use protonmail. Any emails sent between us are PGP encrypted automatically via the default protonmail behavior. It’s also possible to store PGP keys for external users...
My wife and my friends also use protonmail. Any emails sent between us are PGP encrypted automatically via the default protonmail behavior. It’s also possible to store PGP keys for external users so that email to them is also automatically encrypted. It all depends on your threat model. I, for one, just appreciate they’re not mining my email for ad data.
I don't see the issue here. They were obligated by law to collect and hand over that data to authorities. Are we supposed to react to this in some way?
I don't see the issue here. They were obligated by law to collect and hand over that data to authorities. Are we supposed to react to this in some way?
These bits are really the problematic ones, moreso than what Protonmail did. The slow expansion of 'terrorism' to mean 'literally any illegal activity' is a dangerous, dangerous thing.
Yes, this case is clearly political and criminal rather than "terrorism"
There's a reason we treat armed robbery differently from shoplifting.
It's reasonably justifiable to allow more leeway on civil rights encroachment in order to stop mass killings of innocent civilians.
It's much less so calling protestors, even disruptive ones, terrorists. And, in the USA, it's exactly this sort of behavior that was being warned about as far back as The Patriot Act after 9/11 (probably further, but that was the first in my adult life).
And the problem being that laws passed to help against terrorists will get warped over time if it's convenient for law enforcement.
I really disagree. Power is abused. You hand power over to someone, like a government, sure the guy or department right now says something like "it's only for this purpose, just that, and come on it's a really good purpose."
Then that guy leaves. Or someone changes his mind. Or gets installed above him and overrules him. Or her. And so on. And other people go "well, we already have this power, so why aren't we using it?" So they do.
Years ago, way back before electronic anything had even started to become the shitshow it is now, New York installed electronic tracking into the bridge crossings and toll roads and all that. They did it only for billing purposes, so people could pay in an orderly fashion without having to stop at the booth. Have you paid your tolls? Then you can travel. Haven't and you're in the lanes or through the no-stop crossings? We send you fines.
Sounds reasonable. And even is.
Then the NYPD showed up with a request they'd been handed by a prosecutor. "We have a murder suspect, and we need to check his alibi." There was an initial pushback to handing over the information. Privacy. "But it's murder!" was the push-pushback. "Do you want murderers to go free?"
It's tough to argue against that, especially since everyone starts piping up with "yeah, fuck murderers."
So the toll authorities lost the fight, and handed the information over.
And within a year or two, the NYPD just routinely checked everyone they were investigating against toll records. Like, it was standard. The same as they pull phone records and so on. Get accused of something, and your movements are free game.
Keep in mind, this was before everyone began carrying around a locator device in their pocket. The phone knows where you are within a few feet, all the time. Or, at least, it knows where it is. And you're usually carrying the phone. If the phone's moving and being used, it's gonna take a genius lawyer (even if it's true) to manage to convince anyone that you weren't the one carrying your phone around. Plus they don't just check the location (bad enough), they pull the entire record so all your texts and posts and all that, open book. The only reason they don't have a record of the actual voice calls is that's not something the system tracks.
Yet.
Wait until some corp or phone company or whoever institutes some AI system that'll automatically index and record all your calls. They'll bill it as a convenience. "Tired of forgetting stuff? Want automatic integration with your calendar and so on? Just don't say no, don't uncheck this box, and we'll take care of the rest." Suddenly cops won't even have to ask "what were you talking about on these dates to this person?" They'll have full transcripts and recordings.
So now everyone has an electronic leash. And it's already been established all over the country that all police and prosecutors have to say is "but crime" and presto, every single movement of yours is up for scrutiny.
It always starts small. And with something "obvious." Like "for the children."
Privacy has no meaning if you poke seventeen thousand exceptions through the firewall that's supposed to shield it. The exceptions are always framed as reasonable and for a good purpose. Then, once they're established, those exceptions just become the norm and things get funneled through those holes.
Due process is supposed to examine each exception, every time, for a reason. To ensure there's no other way, that there is other evidence indicating there's a need to breach the wall and allow the leak to happen this time.
Except what's the number one thing you'll hear from a cop or prosecutor? "We don't have time for that." They hate rules. They hate "procedure." They just want carte blanche. So does the government. They'll always have a good story, but once they ram an exception through, that exception becomes standard and opens the floodgate.
Cue the people below me saying "so you want terrorists to get away with it" or "you want murderers to walk free."
Which is a strawman designed to move the point away from privacy and toward something you can't win against. What I want is rules, laws, to be followed. And those laws should not be written to turn citizens who have been convicted of no crime, or indicted of no crime absent actual evidence into suspects who have no privacy.
"We think this guy is going to do (insert excuse) stuff so we want his entire life opened to us." Okay, why do you think that? "Well, we just do, so open up. All the data, right now, and hurry the fuck up about it too."
That should not be good enough. But it often is.
Privacy advocates always get eyes rolled at them. Get heavy sighs of exasperation. People accuse them of wanting to enable anarchy and allow chaos to reign.
Then the same fucking eye rolling heavy sighing folks wonder how and why they're getting ads and coupons for baby formula when their sister only told them four hours ago she's expecting. Or, worse, wonder why they're sitting in an interrogation room and only later find out it's something stupid like "well you were in the same forum with this guy we're sure is bad, and traded messages with him, explain that."
To be clear, I generally agree with you. My phrasing was intended to highlight that determining the rules for society requires compromises, and that thresholds differ based on severity, as is the case for many, many other things. Few people would disagree with the Amber alert system as implemented, but there's probably be a lot more if it was used primarily for arresting parking violators.
That said, I don't particularly have a problem with toll data being collected and disclosed as part of a warrant or trial proceedings, in part because cars in particular are already a highly-regulated sector. It would have been acceptable to subpoena a gas station for video footage to do the same.
My bigger problems are things like Ring that enable mass-dragnet levels of surveillance to be pulled up on a whim due to the centralization of the service.
And the biggest problem being that pretty much all of government is willing to rubber-stamp or ignore processes that were intended to be the proper 'gating' like warrants.
as with the previous arrest, I blame this more on the user than protonmail. they have no choice but to comply with a legal request for information they have and never claimed that they wouldn't.
It baffles me that people expect anyone, corporation or otherwise, to not comply with a lawful warrant.
I use Protonmail. The service they’re selling is private email (they block trackers very well) and secure encryption for messages they hold. If this news indicated they actually have the emails in plain text or that they are willing to install backdoors in their software I would have a problem with that. But they only helped to ID the owner by proxy.
My protonmail address is my full legal name. So I’m a different type of customer than the person the police were after.
Honest question - how is the added security that Protonmail offers actually useful? E-mail is an inherently insecure medium, and all of the added inconveniences in the world seem like they wouldn't amount to much given that the people you're sending and receiving mail from are likely using traditional services like Gmail and Outlook.
You're right that most of the time there will be an insecurely stored copy on a 3rd party email server. But at least my email host isn't going to be the weakest link. Now all of my emails go from 2 points of entry to 1 (well, 1-ish... nothing is un-hackable). And in the case of email within Proton Mail there is full end-to-end encryption.
The main day-to-day benefit is the automatic tracker blocking - on my phone, on the web client, etc. They even proxy images so that I can view them without the sender getting my IP address. Generally I'm happy with the quality of the service. Because I want a custom domain I need to pay for email hosting anyway.
Quick nitpick: Protonmail is not end to end encrypted. It's only providing an encrypted lockbox to store your emails.
E2E only happens if both parties are encrypting/decrypting message content before sending using PGP or equivalent.
It's a great service, I use it myself, but everyone should be aware its limitations.
It is end to end encrypted for emails sent between Proton Mail users.
So, I had heard that marketing claim and had hand-waved it away. I never really followed up on understanding their PGP integration, and I gotta say that's pretty awesome. You can apparently even integrate external users as well by manually attaching the public key.
In the OP's case, the literal weak link was their e-mail address hosted at Proton, and the government didn't need to know the contents of their e-mails or make use of a state-sponsored backdoor in order to make an arrest.
I suppose I'm wondering what threat profile Proton's added security and privacy is designed to protect against? It's always nice for a service to be more secure by default, but if the cost is being incompatible with standards like IMAP and CalDAV1 and the apps that use them, I'm not sure that the juice is worth the squeeze.
1I am aware that there is an IMAP shim you can run on the desktop, but it seems like the only way to interface with Proton on mobile is through their official app.
The weakness was that they added a separate insecure and identifiable email as their recovery email for their Proton account. There are many ways to use almost all privacy tools in ways that will lower or completely remove their privacy protections. It pays to be aware of them, especially if you know you're going to be targeted by a government agency.
For me using a 3rd party email client isn’t important at all.
I’m not trying to hide my existence. But I might get private info sent to my email address.
My wife and my friends also use protonmail. Any emails sent between us are PGP encrypted automatically via the default protonmail behavior. It’s also possible to store PGP keys for external users so that email to them is also automatically encrypted. It all depends on your threat model. I, for one, just appreciate they’re not mining my email for ad data.
I don't see the issue here. They were obligated by law to collect and hand over that data to authorities. Are we supposed to react to this in some way?
I see it as more a public awareness issue. Like, learn your opsec, take it seriously.