I served, you're absolutely full of shit. The poster or book with forbidden tattoos is older than either of us. And I was a combat medic, saw plenty of infantry with ink and none of it racist symbols. Because they wanted to stay in the military.
with every bad thing that's happening right now children are getting the absolute shit end worst of it
but you’re the author of FOREVER WARS
Hollywood Steve Huey: I dunno man, JD Vance's wife is an Indian woman and yet he still behaves like a neo-nazi incel Ryan Grim replies: If someone told you he hated Indian people, would you believe that?
Starting to think this guy might not be super smart
Yes
Whether the statements in the blog post are true is only relevant if I, or anyone in the conversation, had actually argued that that blog post was legally binding. I apologize if anything in my initial post in this thread implied that I was making an assertion about Proton's legal culpability
Ah that's helpful to know. I suppose it's on me for being ignorant about that and failing to infer that "That article is twelve years old" referred to the technicalities of Proton's legal obligations, in a thread that I had thought was explicitly about Proton's reputational claims
Got it. Any reason why you jumped into an ongoing thread with that factoid, as opposed to another one, like "That article contains more than 1,250 words" or "That article was written in a sans-serif typeface"
"Men frequently experience me that way when I just say things that are true"
Oh sorry I was just riffing off of the earlier reply, I think we all agree that men suck
Tewson: That article is twelve years old Me: Oh maybe someone should wake up the webmaster from their 12 year long nap and unlink it from their homepage
I was irritated that you jumped into a thread that was between two strangers, and kicked off with ascribing a bad faith legal argument to me that I didn't make? Was this too snarky of a reply by me? I apologize if that's what escalated things, I didn't mean to imply that YOU were Proton's webmaster
I was getting heated, but I do think it's a little premature to make lynching allusions. Let's all take a deep breath bud
Yes, it's a fact that blog post was 12 years old — and, apparently unbeknownst to you, prominent on their current webpage and relevant to their reputation on privacy. I can see you've argued with a lot of men b/c you've certainly adopted their tactic of jumping in and doubling down 👍
You have to prove actual harm. Dan's too stuck up in his own ass to admit no jury would treat "Proton provides data to third parties, which includes the FBI" as harmful to Proton's reputation, when their official position is "We gave data to a third party who we knew wanted to give it to the FBI"
Nah, Tewson is an adult and a more than capable bluesky litigator. If she responds "That article is twelve years old", she doesn't need to say "why the hell are you posting an old article dumbass", it's properly inferred. Unfortunately she didn't realize it's a highly visible part of their homepage
Thank you, and that's why in my reply I said I'd be heeding your suggestion
You're right, I should just respond to comments in passive aggressive bad faith in the way that Kathryn is capable of. I'm sorry, and I will do better
Good thing I never asserted anything about enforceable contracts. Maybe take a minute to read a thread before jumping in with your WELL AKSCHUALLY 👍
Proton Mail Helped FBI Unmask Anonymous ‘Stop Cop City’ Protester A court record reviewed by 404 Media shows privacy-focused email provider Proton Mail handed over payment data related to a Stop Cop City email account to the Swiss government, which handed it to the FBI.
Privacy-focused email provider Proton Mail provided Swiss authorities with payment data that the FBI then used to determine who was allegedly behind an anonymous account affiliated with the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, according to a court record reviewed by 404 Media. The records provide insight into the sort of data that Proton Mail, which prides itself both on its end-to-end encryption and that it is only governed by Swiss privacy law, can and does provide to third parties. In this case, the Proton Mail account
"Tough sell" — you're a lawyer, I'm sure you can make a good case that a "lie" was defamatory. Here's 404's headline and deck and lede, explain to the jury how 404 Media's "lie" justifies awarding damages to Proton
Who was the author of the blog post Kathryn? And where is that blog post located? Very funny that you're so eager to deride it as just a "blog post"
Okay Dan, you're a lawyer. If 404 Media is telling a lie here, tell us how you would convince a jury that 404Media has committed defamation against Proton
The distinction you make is only relevant to whether we were putting Proton on trial for violating international commerce statute. For the average person, why is "Proton doesn't send the data to the FBI, they send the data to someone who has agreed to the FBI's demand for our data" meaningful?
404 Media: "This shows the sort of data that Proton Mail can provide to third parties. In this case, the FBI."
Proton [paraphrase]: We didn't provide data to the FBI. We provided data to an entity who compelled us to share data with them so they could fulfill the FBI's request for our data
Sorry that journalists don't have the same perspective as a Proton brownnoser. It happens
Orion Kidder @orionkidder.bsky.social · 17h This is irresponsible framing. The words "helped" and "provided" imply that Proton did this voluntarily, but they were required under Swiss law. I don't hear any information to indicate that they could have done anything differently. You should clarify this. You're misrepresenting. @dancow.bsky.social “but they were required under Swiss law” — then maybe someone should inform the Proton webmaster to delete this irresponsibly framed section from their website
Does your brain have the concept of context, are are you only able to process the last 50 characters in the stream of data that you consume. I've not contended the terms of Proton's policy, I'm pointing out that their consumer-facing claims make 404's "framing" necessary and useful
Outside of US and EU jurisdiction: Swiss companies are not allowed to share information with foreign law enforcement under criminal penalty. Politically neutral: Switzerland has a long history of neutrality, which shields us from pressure of foreign governments.
How is that relevant when judging Proton's assertion about "sharing information". Please tell me, what's the difference in the definition of "information" between matters of privacy and anonymity?
The "12 y.o. old blog post" is currently on the FUCKING HOMEPAGE. Do you not think that a company should be judged for what they choose to publish and retain on their official homepage?
"but but but you should read the TOS" — sure, then seems like 404 is doing a service here, what's the issue?
...as you said, users are naive enough to take" Swiss companies are not allowed to share information with foreign law enforcement under criminal penalty" at face value. So why not eliminate that homepage article? Simply replace it w/ a link to the actual TOS & Article 271 of the Swiss Criminal Code
Sorry, I don't disagree with you, but look at what my initial reply was: orionkidder.bsky.social thinks 404's article is "misleading", that in fact, Proton hasn't (technically) violated their advertised privacy claims. I'm merely pointing out that maybe Proton's advertised claims could be softened
Sorry, I was under the impression that Kathryn’s observation that this article being 12-years-old factors negatively into its relevance on a current user’s understanding of Proton’s privacy claims
Do you think if a 12-year-old article about assertions on privacy protections is now obsolete, that a company should be judged if they choose to continue linking directly to it on the front page of their official website?
