this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
59 points (91.5% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
55507 readers
807 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And the fact that their internal information even can reveal any information indicates a lack of true privacy. Here is an example of setting up a system so you cannot comply.
Mullvad doesn't host email. The warrant pertained to emails, not a VPN.
Not having logs helps a ton with anonymity, and your question didn't have that requirement.
Because it didn't need it. Email cannot function with the same level of logging as a VPN. My question was about refusal to comply, which Mullvad did not do.
how the fuck do you run an email provider without storing anything on disk, first of all?
next point is mullvad is ready to close shop if that's what they need to do after a raid. but of you're storing people's data for their request basically, like Proton, you can't just do that because everyone will be mad for losing their data and access to the email service.
finally, Proton does provide a way to use their services in secret, as they run their onion site. login over Tor, done. but probably also create the account over Tor, and never log in through clearnet with that account
I was answering
No you weren't. Not having the information is not the same thing as refusing to comply.
Preemptive prevention of access is a form of noncompliance
No it isn't.