Proton AG, the Swiss company responsible for Proton Mail, a popular encrypted email service, faced criticism in April for complying with a request from Spanish police for user information regarding a Catalan pro-independence activist. This decision sparked controversy as it seemed contradictory for a company that promises privacy to cooperate with legal requests. However, those who are angry with Proton for complying need to reevaluate their expectations of privacy technology.
While encryption and its associated ideals are widely embraced, it is important to recognize that encryption is not a cure-all solution, and metadata becomes increasingly significant as more data is encrypted. When it comes to privacy, minimizing metadata is crucial, but centralized services have limitations on how much they can reduce their metadata collection.
Proton deserves credit for their efforts in limiting access to user metadata. They have built a system in which the only information they can provide is an optional recovery email. In this particular case, Proton complied with the request by providing the user’s recovery email address, which led police to their Apple account. Instead of acknowledging this achievement, Proton has been met with online backlash, including calls to cancel subscriptions and sensational headlines questioning the company’s integrity.
The idea that privacy companies should openly defy legal requests from authorities is a fantasy that has surfaced multiple times in the past. However, this expectation is unrealistic and ultimately self-destructive. If Proton were to take this approach, they would face severe legal pressure that could potentially lead to the demise of the entire company. This outcome would not be beneficial for Proton, its users, or the overall state of privacy.
FreedomTech editor SethForPrivacy defended Proton Mail by emphasizing that the case proved the company’s architecture minimizes the amount of data they retain on users. Proton is well aware of the limitations imposed on them, which is why they complied with nearly 6,000 legal requests in 2023 alone. Once the initial shock wore off and knowledgeable individuals like SethForPrivacy provided their insights, more people accepted that the outrage was unwarranted and unhelpful.
Blaming the activist’s operational security (opsec) for the deanonymization in this case is a cop-out. It is not productive to simply say, “You should have had better opsec.” Instead, we should focus on how we can improve the situation and protect privacy.
Encryption should serve as our foundation, and we should actively promote and safeguard it. Proton’s minimal metadata collection is a good starting point. Additionally, using a VPN/Tor (not ProtonVPN) and paying for subscriptions with cryptocurrency are sage pieces of advice. However, relying on manual user hardening leaves behind those who may be at high-risk and in need of protection.
In the Catalan activist’s case, the combination of an email used for signing up for an end-to-end encrypted messaging app, a recovery email provided to a secure email service, and an iCloud email created a metadata trail that could be easily followed. While these may seem like small mistakes, they collectively create vulnerabilities.
To further minimize metadata collection, decentralization could be a valuable approach. By building applications on decentralized networks capable of storing and routing necessary data, we can reduce the amount of data centralized companies need to process. For example, an email service could store and forward the mail itself, utilizing advanced privacy-preserving techniques like onion routing. Networks such as Tor and blockchain-secured networks like Nym already exist and could be utilized in this manner.
While a decentralized email service may be impractical, decentralized networks can be effective for other communication tools like messaging, video and voice conferencing, and team communication platforms. Purposeful decentralization could provide an additional layer of protection for at-risk individuals in cases where safety and security are critical.
In conclusion, legal requests will continue to be made, and companies will continue to comply. However, in situations where safety is paramount, purposeful decentralization can offer vital protection. Proton has access to existing solutions that could benefit both the company and its users. All they need to do is reach out for assistance.