Is this true??
You must log in or # to comment.
First, let’s correct the headline: Proton did not provide information to the FBI. What happened is that the FBI submitted a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request, which was processed by the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police. Proton operates exclusively under Swiss law, and we only respond to legally binding orders from Swiss authorities, after all Swiss legal checks have been passed. This is an important distinction.
Second, let’s talk about what this case actually involved. This wasn’t a routine investigation. Swiss authorities determined that the legal threshold was met because a law enforcement officer was shot, and explosive devices were found during a protest in 2024. Switzerland has one of the strongest legal frameworks for privacy in the world, and its standard for granting international legal assistance is exceptionally high. This case met that standard.
Third, let’s talk about what was actually disclosed. No emails were handed over. No message content. No metadata about who the user communicated with. The only information Proton could provide was a payment identifier because the user chose to pay with a credit card. This is information the user themselves provided to us through their choice of payment method. Proton also accepts cryptocurrency and cash payments, which would not have been linkable to an identity.
If anything, this case demonstrates exactly what we’ve always said: Proton holds very little user data by design. Even under the most serious legal circumstances, the only data that could be produced was a payment record. Our encryption means we simply cannot access email content even if ordered to.
We understand that stories like this can be alarming, and we take our users’ trust seriously. We will continue to fight for privacy and challenge any legal order we believe does not meet the strict requirements of Swiss law. But we also want to be transparent: no service can operate outside the law entirely, and Swiss law requires compliance with valid legal orders in serious criminal cases. What we can promise is that the legal bar in Switzerland is among the highest in the world, and our architecture ensures we have as little data as possible to hand over.
For users who want maximum anonymity: use Proton VPN or Tor, pay with cash or cryptocurrency, and don’t add a recovery email.
Crypto where? 😁
https://proton.me/support/pay-with-bitcoin
Not sure why it does not appear for you. Maybe you have to use the web interface?
Nice, but then you might as well pay with a credit card.
They accept cash, https://proton.me/support/payment-options#cash
deleted by creator
Proton didn’t “help the FBI”. Proton was forced to help the Swiss government. By law, Proton has to refuse to help the FBI, because that would break Swiss privacy laws. But if the FBI convinces the Swiss government to help them, then the Swiss can just kick in Proton’s doors and seize all their servers if Proton refuses a legal warrant.
Proton is privacy focused email, it is not anonymous email unless you use Tor and pay with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not anonymous
not if you’re an average internet user who thinks bitcoin can’t be anonymous, no.
if you need reminding to not use a credit card to stay anonymous then your bitcoin likely wouldn’t be anonymous either, so why bring it up in the first place. someone might take the statment and run with it
Since they “helped” the Swiss court by following necessary Swiss law, didn’t they “help” the FBI?
If they didn’t even know the FBI was asking the Swiss courts, one could still say what they they did was “helpful” to the FBI.
don’t be pedantic. you know exactly what I meant when I said they didn’t help the FBI.
No. That’s the point. We have different ideas about what it means to help. I think help is simply doing something (or not doing something) that benefits someone else. You (and others) seem to also give it some additional qualities related to consent, agrement, or support. Since I don’t ascribe any moral judgement to the word and only use its most limited literal meaning, I hope it’s more clear to you how confusing it can be when you infer morality from amoral terms, and try to refrain from doing so in the future. Communication would be much smoother if people were more deliberately literal with their word choice.
You’re being very pedantic for nothing.
Yes. It would save a lot of confusion online if people were more pedantic. One might even call it helping.
No. You’re creating debates and arguments over insignificant shit.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
No. Proton followed Swiss court orders to hand over data from a user, and the user had used his own credit card to pay for Proton instead of any of the available anonymous methods.
“They only followed orders. All good.”
You say no, then explain exactly how it’s a yes.
“Helped” is a very proactive term, they didn’t even comply to the FBI request, the FBI had to get a court order from the Swiss government. The title could as easily say it was the user that helped the FBI unmask him by giving personal information that wasn’t required.
Is it proactive? Sometimes doing nothing can be helpful to someone.
Nobody disagrees with what the literal events were. It just seems like some people feel like helping the FBI collect evidence against a suspect is a bad thing, and don’t want to frame Proton that way.
That’s crazy of course. Proton never sold itself as a tool to protect criminals. Nobody want’s them to be that. They need to comply with all legal requests for information. That’s what they’re supposed to do.
If they didn’t they’d be shut down. And the rest of us would loose the reasonable privacy protection we want and they offer. That would be very bad.
It wasn’t proactive at all. It was in response to a Swiss court order. Which they are required to comply with since they are based on Switzerland.
PiraHxCx said “helped” is a very proactive term. I was asking about the implications of the word helped. Pointing out that it doesn’t necessarily imply anything active. I wasn’t talking about any specific example or event.
paranoia-level anonymyty doesnt happen by default. this guy failed to due his due diligence to utilize a anonymous payment method, and that was literally the only piece of data it took 2 governments to get out of proton.
how any of that equates to proton doing something wrong is baffling to me.
Who said Proton did anything wrong?
It’s the clear assumption people have in nearly every comment in all of these threads. Because no one ever reads the articles, and the headlines are certainly implying people make that assumption.
It’s not a yes. The headline makes out that Proton told the FBI who the activist was. When the reality is all they did, per a court order from the Swiss government, was hand over receipt information. Information that of course is going to be documented because payments are taxed.
Had the Activist used a valid Crypto Currency or paid in cash (with delivery through a burnable alias) he probably wouldn’t be found out.
You force me to give you a gun, you give the gun to terrorists. Have I supported terrorism?
You certainly “helped” the terrorists.
I don’t know if you support them. That’s not even the question here.
Proton didn’t break any privacy promises.
Proton never ever promised to hide anyone’s Proton payment info from govts. not even for Proton crypto wallet.
privacy ≠ anonymity
privacy ≠ security
they are not the same but they intersect. do web search for a venn diagram.
Probably.
If the FBI had a proper warrent from a judge, and convinced the Swiss court it’s all good. Then yah, the Swiss ask for the data, Proton will absolutely hand it over. They follow Swiss law. The real content is all encrypted, but the metadata isn’t.In this case they matched the email address with the guys credit card.
Wouldn’t be surprised, Proton has been smelling off for some time. Im a user since half a decade. Don’t trust them. Better than google, but don’t fucking trust them.
