Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

protonmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#61

Post by protonmail »

turc1656 wrote: post #35
pkilgore wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people at ProtonMail are clearly under the belief that they are only subject to Swiss law because they are located in Switzerland. What led you to believe this is so clear?

These excerpts taken together: 1) "As a Swiss company, when it comes to the data of Proton users, we will only comply with the laws of Switzerland, the jurisdiction of our headquarters and where all of our servers are located. As we have always consistently stated in our terms and conditions and privacy policy, any requests which fall outside of Swiss law will be politely refused" 2) "Proton does not have offices, em…

It's actually a bit more nuanced. Any government in any country can at any time decide that their laws apply to you (because hey, it's a government, they can do whatever they want). However, unless you are operating in that country, there is very little they can do in terms of enforcing that upon you.

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#62

Post by scoobyyabbadoo »

ttraub wrote: post #27
sessy wrote: post #5

It's a recurring theme: Media outlets publish whatever they 'want' to believe with little due diligence and the product makers have to scramble to put up clarifiers.

Media outlets certainly do that, but can't product makers sue them for damages, when they publish false information that can tank a stock or kill a company's sales?

Usually not. To prove libel you have to prove: 1. the information is false, 2. The speaker knew it was false, 3. The speaker spread the false information with the intent to harm the plantiff. Without all three it isn't libel in the US.

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#63

Post by scoobyyabbadoo »

paulcarroty wrote: post #26

This article sounds like suspicious excuse, really. I don't wan't to touch any device/service affiliated with Huawei/Chinese intelligence. Is there any good&reputable replacement for ProtonMail?

Why was protonmail ever considered good or reputable?

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#64

Post by scoobyyabbadoo »

I don't understand why people ever believed Protonmail's privacy claims to begin with? Not that I have reason to doubt them either, but their security seems nothing more than an unverified promise? I'm skeptical of my privacy protection coming from small companies that could easily be bought outright by governmental or political groups.

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#65

Post by turc1656 »

protonmail wrote: post #61
turc1656 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These excerpts taken together: 1) "As a Swiss company, when it comes to the data of Proton users, we will only comply with the laws of Switzerland, the jurisdiction of our headquarters and where all of our servers are located. As we have always consistently stated in our terms and conditions and privacy policy, any requests which fall outside of Swiss law will be politely refused" 2) "Proton does not have offices, em…

It's actually a bit more nuanced. Any government in any country can at any time decide that their laws apply to you (because hey, it's a government, they can do whatever they want). However, unless you are operating in that country, there is very little they can do in terms of enforcing that upon you.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make - your country would have to be willing to participate. That's risky, albeit to varying degrees, depending on the country a person/business reside in because governments can change their opinion at any moment or enter in new agreements to combat whatever they may deem as "global crime".

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#66

Post by ethbro »

bgorman wrote: post #51
Barrin92 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still completely astonished by how little attention this got and that Bloomberg has never been forced through public pressure to offer a correction. It's bizarre given how large the story was when it first broke.

Bloomberg is based in a country with secret courts and secret gag orders for electronic surveillance (USA). Is is really that surprising that they have been unable to provide evidence regarding major electronic surveillance efforts?

The irony would be if they were under a gag order not to issue a retraction.

But that's diving down the paranoia rabbit hole.

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#67

Post by ethbro »

twic wrote: post #25
bogle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sympathise with the BBC as it must be hard finding people who are both articulate enough to appear and coherent when defending Brexit.

Ah yes, this old chestnut: https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/92367597312354304...

It's a valid point, although probably not in the way the young man intends it.

In the interest of remaining fair and balanced, media ultimately has to appear biased, if the supporters of the issue are... unbalanced in appeal.

I think this is less of an issue with Brexit, as one can make a cogent argument for Leave (although that doesn't seem to be the popular argument).

But for something like chemtrails? How could you possibly hold a "debate" that a believer couldn't look at and say "You're just biased against my side?"

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#68

Post by icu »

Angostura wrote: post #23
icu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still find it useful to read mainstream media, even 'free' publications like Metro and the Evening Standard in London. What I do is not read them for news per se, but a sort of high level scan of what the publication's bias is. What narratives are being pushed? How has the publication ordered, or prominently displayed articles? What news is completely omitted? For example, no mainstream media outlet in the UK cover…

> Al Quds day in London From what I can tell, the March on this day tends to attract less than 500 people. So lack of coverage is not a indication of BBC bias. Regarding Brexit, Question Time seems to have Nigel Farrage on all the time, despite his lack of electoral success. Still, I decide to take a look at last week's panel for you. And here is what I found: Kwasi Kwarteng - Pro Brexit Emily Thornberry - Remain Lay…

Well Al Quds day might be perceived as news worthy due to Hezbollah being officially considered a terrorist organisation by the United Kingdom along with the United States, the European Union, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Israel, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia to name a few.

Considering London has suffered from multiple ideologically possessed terror attacks it might be worth reconsidering how newsworthy open support of a terrorist organisation is.

Additionally, the Jewish community in London are particularly sensitive to the march as Al Quds day brings about hate speech towards them.

I'm not saying Al Quds day should be banned in London, but I think a public dialogue and debate should be had. In my estimation the lack of it is due to the 'multiculturalism is our strength' narrative bias held at the BBC.

Now I'm not saying 'multiculturalism is bad', I'm the product of it, and I definitely think it has benefits. But there are problems with it, which need to be confronted and worked through for a better society. Without a doubt these are sensitive, and ugly issues, but pretending they don't exist because you are captured by bias, will not solve the issues.

As for your Brexit comment, I believe you are suffering from recency bias.

In a report published in January 2018 called ‘Brussels Broadcasting Corporation?’, think-tank Civitas in conjunction with the group News-watch, monitored thousands of hours of radio and TV shows dating back to 1999 including the BBC flagship Radio 4 programme Today.

Of 4,275 guests on Today between 2005 and 2015 who talked about the EU, only 132 were Brexiteers.

Put another way, just 3.2% of Today interviewees were anti-EU, despite consistent public support for EU withdrawal throughout this time.

There are also a plethora of articles about this on Google, so in a way you are kind of proving my point because the data is out there but you didn't want to, or think to, look for it.

However I'm far less concerned about being 'right' and far more concerned about dealing with reality... and I believe the more people that deal with reality there are the better the world will be.

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#69

Post by icu »

icebraining wrote: post #34
icu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still find it useful to read mainstream media, even 'free' publications like Metro and the Evening Standard in London. What I do is not read them for news per se, but a sort of high level scan of what the publication's bias is. What narratives are being pushed? How has the publication ordered, or prominently displayed articles? What news is completely omitted? For example, no mainstream media outlet in the UK cover…

> Facts on the ground at the most recent (...) marches is that there is a lot of Hezbollah flags flown. [citation needed]. Flying the Hezbollah flag was made illegal by the British Parliament in March, ahead of the most recent march: https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/05/28/flying-the-hezbollah-f...

Thanks, I totally missed this piece of news and have fallen to bias myself! I gave up monitoring Al Quds day in 2018 after making a complaint to the BBC that got a boilerplate response. I just don't have the time or the resources to do anything about it.

The open support for Hezbollah was there in 2018 and in previous years... but from 2019 the reports I've read, it seems like the police enforced the new law. I would need to make a freedom of information request with the police to see if there were any arrests to verify this.

Re: Clarifying ProtonMail and Huawei

#70

Post by rossmohax »

doesnt_know wrote: post #8
rossmohax wrote: post #3

I'd prefer to see them spending time on polishing their mobile app, which lacks in UX in important areas. For instance offline access to received, but yet unopened emails simply doesn't work. There is a (mis)feature where email bodies are downloaded only on notification, but in my case emails remain unavailable offline and Protonmail support was unhelpful. But even if email-via-notification worked, it is still pretty…

This comment comes across as particularly callous. They are saying a part of why they may support the Huawei app store is to continue to provide access to the app to those in developing countries, and your response is to say you'd prefer them spend time on your personal UX pet peeve...

It is personal in a sense that it is a personal experience and I am unsatisfied customer because of that. Offline access is pretty fundamental feature and it is utterly broken, when I see that they are going to spend company limited resources on a goal which doesn't benefit me as a customer, of course I am questioning whether their interests are aligned with mine.

FWIW, offline access is even more important in developing countries, yet devs living in Switzerland and clearly having no probem with their 4G coverage are failing to realise that.

Post reply on HN