Hacker News Reader

Comment by sebiw | Hacker News Reader

Quote from the post:

> ProtonMail even mentions a current case of real-time surveillance:

„In April 2019, at the request of the Swiss judiciary in a case of clear criminal conduct, we enabled IP logging against a specific user account which is engaged in illegal activities which contravene Swiss law. Pursuant to Swiss law, the user in question will also be notified and afforded the opportunity to defend against this in court before the data can be used in criminal proceedings.“

By writing of a „case of clear criminal conduct“ and of „illegal activities which contravene Swiss law“, ProtonMail violates the presumption of innocence against the monitored suspects. Such suspects are of course not informed by ProtonMail about ongoing real-time surveillance measures.

View on HN

I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging.

What I'm saying is that the author claims they voluntarily offer real-time logging without the need for judical intervention - per the prosecutor.

The author of the article at hand later added an addendum saying the prosecutor was mis-quoted in their article [[ and that Protonmail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging.]] (Note: The part inbetween [[]] is misleading - the prosectuor does not say that. I wrote it out rather than quoted it directly, and made an error. I am leaving it in for posterity)

The authors defense regarding the misquote is saying "I live tweeted it, so it happened".

Whether they do or not - I'm just pointing out the weakness of the argument that "I tweeted it, so it happened"

I think we should not think of "request" in the same way as a court order. This seems the essential difference to me.

By the way: The author of the post is an attorney at law and member of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC), which makes me believe that he wouldn't falsely accuse ProtonMail.

As an attorney, I would expect a better substantiation than "I tweeted it, so it's true".

But, fair enough regarding request vs. order. I am not familiar with Swiss law terminology.

And he might be right! But to claim he is right because "I tweeted it during the conference" is, as I said, not swaying me either way.

> I'm not denying that they complied with the order to enable IP logging.

What 'order'? All their report says is 'request'. If they had meant order, they would have said court order: in all the other cases in the transparency report, they specify if there was a court order.

Okay - fair.

How does that change the fact that saying "I tweeted it so it's true" is not a strong argument in a he-said-she-said debate?

I think it's a strong argument. It's not 'someone much later with fuzzy memories decided to interpret what they thought they heard', it's 'someone right there and then was so struck by what the revelation they just heard that they broadcast it to the world (and you can check that they did by looking at the Twitter timestamp)'.

Which do you trust more, a witness statement taken a minute after the crime, or made a year later?

That someone said something very revealing and immediately backtracked with an excuse "I didn't say what I said" is, on the other hand, deeply unconvincing.

The addendum does not categorically say that ProtonMail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging. The prosecutor correction says he didn’t disclose that at that event. He could have disclosed it anywhere else, he might know it happens but hasn’t disclosed yet. The quoted correction is worded in a way the prosecutor could have certain knowledge they do do that and is not refuting it.

// EDIT (moved word categorically) per comment below.

> The addendum does not categorically say that ProtonMail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging.

Took me a second to calculate your meaning, this may help others.

Fair reading of the addendum, I put my own words to it and it was misleading.

I don't think it detracts from "I tweeted it, so he said it" per:

>The remark that ProtonMail was a (potential) PDCS would have been too trivial to be live-tweeted. The insight on the other hand that ProtonMail voluntarily offers assistance for real-time surveillance, was spectacular and I therefore live-tweeted the statement.

>The author of the article at hand later added an addendum saying the prosecutor was mis-quoted in their article and that Protonmail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging.

That is completely false. The author said that the prosecutor claimed to have been misquoted, not that he was misquoted. The author clearly stands by his quote, and it is therefore untrue that he says that Protonmail does not voluntarily offer real-time logging.

You are correct, my rewording ended up being misleading. My apologies.

I don't think it detracts from the substance of my argument, however. This is a he-said-she-said battle where one says "I tweeted it so it happened" and the other says "no, it doesnt".

Neither side is particularily convincing.

> Neither side is particularily convincing.

That's true of all he said she said arguments. The next step is gathering proof, not begging for more of the same he said, she said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com