this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
169 points (97.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
59648 readers
155 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):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 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
Just FYI, the majority of Proton AG (which includes all Proton services) is owned by a non-profit body called the "Proton Foundation". This are headed by a board of 5 members, including Andy (CEO) and Tim Berners-Lee (the literal father of the internet as we know it).
Proton is fine.
routing traffic through Israel is not fine.
Then don’t do that? You have your choice of servers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190318213020/https://cryptome.org/2015/11/protonmail-ddos.htm
This is a decontextualized post from 2015 that theorizes a DDoS attack on Proton at the time was coercion to "help" them by offering to proxy their traffic through Bynet in Israel for the purpose of tampering. Is there any other info out there to support this theory? It's intriguing and believable but also complete hearsay absent any other corroboration, context, further info, etc.
I don't trust proton. if you think you can trust proton, feel free to use them.
That didn't answer the question. You made an assertion, but haven't provided any evidence to support that claim.
I did provide evidence. you're asking for more evidence.
No, you provided a conspiracy theory that fit your explicit biases. If you had bothered to actually read the link you provided, you would know they didn't provide any evidence to support their claim that Israel is hacking Proton.
the claim isn't that Israel is hacking proton. the claim is that proton routed traffic through an IDF affiliate.
It literally claims that the traffic was routed expressly for the purpose. You didn't read the article.
I read it when it was published and stashed it for opportunities like this.
Then you didn't read it very good, if you not only missed the fact the article was alleging Proton was hacked by Israel, as well as believe it provides proof of that claim when it does not.
the post is mostly verifiable information with two sentences of speculation that you seem to think is the crux of what I said, when, in fact, all I said is that routing traffic through Israel dimishes my trust in proton.
So your position is that they did something you didn't like a decade ago, and so that makes them untrustworthy now?
At least you've admitted that your argument is nothing more than an opinion.
trustworthiness is always a matter of opinion.
I think you're picking up subtext in my comment that isn't actually there. If you don't have more info that's OK, I can do my own research.
Please elaborate
https://encryp.ch/blog/disturbing-facts-about-protonmail/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190318213020/https://cryptome.org/2015/11/protonmail-ddos.htm
It should be noted everywhere that this person posts this, that this is an allegation without any actual evidence to support it.
the post is the evidence.
No, the post is a conspiracy theory that gives no evidence to support the claim. You can't use an allegation as evidence to support your allegation, that's circular logic.
it's not circular logic. if you don't know, you can just not say things.
That's very good advice. The article you links specifically says "Allegedly" in the title. Let me save you the hassle of getting a dictionary and explain to you the definition of "allegedly":
The article not only does not provide proof, but it admits that it does not provide it. You, however, continue to insist it does because you want it to be true.
I'm not willing to risk that it might be true
Unless you’re an Israel citizen then why does it matter? Chances are you passed data through an Israel server at some point in time whether it be directly or not.
it's one reason among many.
Omfg why even discussing andy pathetic bootlicking when this is a fucking cia honeypot… Their business plan was way too similar to google.