I'm aware of what slander is, I'm just not sure what it has to do with this conversation.
LOL imagine banning an account from an organization that just fined you 130 million Euros and having the gall to pretend like it's not about the fine...
Why even bother? Who is going to believe that?
One corporation DDOS's your server to death so that you need the other corporations' protection.
the CEO said. “We’re basically holding the planet together — and it’s not untrue.”
No. No dude. No. Quite the opposite.
offering me end-to-end encrypted chat
No one - not even X - can access or read your messages
This key is then stored on X’s servers
So...they're just blatantly lying?
Would be very cool if it actually had basic functionality, like searching for items that are actually near me and not 3045390 miles way...
That's a pretty bold thing to yell at members of a violent government agency operating with unfettered authority.
The author omitted the complete statement from Reddit:
Hi everyone,
No, Proton did not knowingly block journalists’ email accounts. Our support for journalists and those working in the public interest has been demonstrated time and again through actions, not just words.
In this case, we were alerted by a CERT that certain accounts were being misused by hackers in violation of Proton’s Terms of Service. This led to a cluster of accounts being disabled.
Because of our zero-access architecture, we cannot see the content of accounts and therefore cannot always know when anti-abuse measures may inadvertently affect legitimate activism.
Our team has reviewed these cases individually to determine if any can be restored. We have now reinstated 2 accounts, but there are other accounts we cannot reinstate due to clear ToS violations.
Regarding Phrack’s claim on contacting our legal team 8 times: this is not true. We have only received two emails to our legal team inbox, last one on Sep 6 with a 48-hour deadline. This is unrealistic for a company the size of Proton, especially since the message was sent to our legal team inbox on a Saturday, rather than through the proper customer support channels.
The situation has unfortunately been blown out of proportion without giving us a fair chance to respond to the initial outreach.
I love that he responded to their takedown request by releasing an entire video about Bloomberg and their shitfuckery.
Reminder that they already responded
The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible
Please don't link to Reddit. Context below:
The EU is currently developing a whitelabel app to perform privacy-preserving (at least in theory) age verification to be adopted and personalized in the coming months by member states. The app is open source and available here: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui.
Problem is, the app is planning to include remote attestation feature to verify the integrity of the app: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui?tab=readme-ov-file#disclaimer. This is supposed to provide assurance to the age verification service that the app being used is authentic and running on a genuine operating system. Genuine in the case of Android means:
-
The operating system was licensed by Google
-
The app was downloaded from the Play Store (thus requiring a Google account)
-
Device security checks have passed
While there is value to verify device security, this strongly ties the app to many Google properties and services, because those checks won't pass on an aftermarket Android OS, even those which increase security significantly like GrapheneOS, because the app plans to use Google "Play Integrity", which only allows Google licensed systems instead of the standard Android attestation feature to verify systems.
This also means that even though you can compile the app, you won't be able to use it, because it won't come from the Play Store and thus the age verification service will reject it.
The issue has been raised here https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/issues/10 but no response from team members as of now.
I wouldn't call it "big tech". The biggest problem is that none of the chats are encrypted by default. And even if you do use "secret chats", the encryption there doesn't seem to be up to PAR with modern standards.
The creator previously refused to comply with warrants but since he was jailed in France, that's pretty much over.
A good messenger is unable to comply, by design, because it simply does not store the data that these govts are after.