Gruber has a very nice disclaimer at the bottom of posts mentioning Bloomberg now:
"Bloomberg, of course, is the publication that published “The Big Hack” last October — a sensational story alleging that data centers of Apple, Amazon, and dozens of other companies were compromised by China’s intelligence services. The story presented no confirmable evidence at all, was vehemently denied by all companies involved, has not been confirmed by a single other publication (despite much effort to do so), and has been largely discredited by one of Bloomberg’s own sources. By all appearances “The Big Hack” was complete bullshit. Yet Bloomberg has issued no correction or retraction, and seemingly hopes we’ll all just forget about it. I say we do not just forget about it. Bloomberg’s institutional credibility is severely damaged, and everything they publish should be treated with skepticism until they retract the story or provide evidence that it was true."
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2019/09/05/gurman-touch-id
If you apply for a writer's job at Bloomberg or many of these media companies, people will ask you if you have a following on Twitter, Facebook and the like with which you can share content you write so that your employment poses a smaller risk to your new employer than someone with little to no following. That in itself might just make writers statistically more loyal to big tech than really necessary.
While I have an inactive account at PM, I'm not involved with them in any way. This is just an observation that I have made over the recent years.
For years companies used to provide all sorts of incentives to put apps in their store. It benefits them highly.
This is ridiculous: https://protonmail.com/blog/clarifying-protonmail-and-huawei...
Are you implying that Huawei is paying ProtonMail so that they put their app in the Huawei AppGallery? Can you provide any proof?
For example, no mainstream media outlet in the UK covers Al Quds day in London (absolutely nothing about this on the BBC or print media). Facts on the ground at the most recent (and previous) marches is that there is a lot of Hezbollah flags flown.
Another example is the BBC’s treatment of Brexit on three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions where Remain commentators outnumber Brexit commentators 3 to 1.
In this instance, Bloomberg seems to be wanting to push the 'Huawei is spying on you' narrative as well as 'Proton Mail isn't secure' narrative.
Make what you will of the points above, maybe they mean something, maybe they don't. I just keep an open mind, try to think for myself, see things from different perspectives, and do my best not to fall for my own cognitive biases.
I still use Proton Mail, and I trust their service more than GMail (I migrated from GMail to Proton Mail), but it's a nice reminder not to trust any corporation too much or get complacent with security. I really don't feel like rolling my own encrypted email solution so the question is, "Who am I willing to trust the solution to?" Ultimately I'm accountable to myself.
As for media bias, sometimes it is blatant, most times however I find it subtle. Either way it is pervasive. Unless you are scanning for it, I imagine it is incredibly easy not to think for yourself.
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
Layla Moran - Remain
Ian Blackford - Remain
Iain Dale - Pro Brexit
Richard Tice - Pro Bexit
No huge anti-Brexit bias in evidence.
[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...
Bloomberg is a source that investors and traders trust with getting them some level of access to the rumour mill (in the spirit of the saying that exists among traders that goes "buy the rumour, sell the news"). The problem here is that, fact or fiction, rumours affect the financial markets, and not knowing about them puts a market participant at a disadvantage.
The article starts by saying in indicative mood "ProtonMail is in talks with Huawei Technologies Co. about including its encrypted email service in future mobile devices [...]" ...I don't really see a problem with that part of the statement since they were indeed in talks of some kind, and there's a certain bandwidth of what "including" could mean. It could just mean "making available through Huawei AppGallery", so there is nothing wrong with using indicative mood here.
In the second paragraph, the article switches the modality and says "The Swiss company’s service COULD come preloaded ..." Now, it could of course be the case, as people are alleging, that they just completely made that shit up and MANUFACTURED a rumour. But it could also be the case that they were reflecting a rumour that was already out there and sufficiently widespread that they thought that investors and traders should know about it. They used subjunctive mood using the auxiliary verb COULD to signal that there was something going on here about the modality of the statement.
ProtonMail speculated that a misunderstanding of their earlier announcement must have been the basis of Bloomberg's article. But I guess we'll never find out if that was indeed so.
ProtonMail clarified their earlier announcement and took issue with the word "partnership" being used to describe their relationship with Huawei, but, interestingly, they did not come flat out to respond to these assertions. For example, they did not say that preloading was not a topic that was discussed.
Now, it stands to reason that preloading would amount to Huawei handing a huge chunk of marketshare to ProtonMail, and then it's up to users to make up their minds about the likelihood of Huawei asking for quid-pro-quo and ProtonMail's response.
Rather than there being no basis at all for the Bloomberg article, another scenario could be that ProtonMail saw that making-up-of-minds play out on social media in response to the Bloomberg article and decided to do a one-eighty on that as a result.
...I guess we'll never know.
[0] https://restoreprivacy.com/lawsuit-names-nordvpn-tesonet/
For instance, at my employer we had training on the GDPR rules and how they relate to us. We are a US based company with many global clients. However, we do have a physical presence in some EU countries so that does differ with the ProtonMail situation. However, in our training we were told that our business presence in the EU is irrelevant to the actual law because we would still be bound by it as it relates to our global clients. The layman's explanation we were given was that if you are using the internet to conduct digital business across country borders then you are pretty much subject to the laws of both nations between the client and the service provider.
That generally translates to defaulting to whichever law is more restrictive. For companies like Facebook and Google, they've rolled out GDPR style protections for everyone globally because it's much easier to do so than to only have it apply to a portion of their users, but that's a separate story.
I think everyone intuitively understands and knows this to be true. We can all think of cases where hackers have committed crimes that may only violate, for example, US laws and have been tried and convicted of such crimes even though they were committed overseas but the aggrieved party is the US or its citizens.
I think what ProtonMail is really saying is that because Switzerland doesn't have laws similar to China in this regard, China won't be able to convince Switzerland to extradite them to China for prosecution.
That's also why Russia threatened to ban them - because they know there is zero chance they will be willingly handed over to Russian authorities for this.
What led you to believe this is so clear?
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, employees, subsidiaries, or any permanent establishments in China or Russia, and as such, we do not fall under the scope of these laws, nor can these laws be enforced against us. However, this does not mean authorities in these countries would not try to enforce the laws anyways."
Is there any good&reputable replacement for ProtonMail?
HN does not allow you to delete comments. I would ask that if you think that not having Yubikeys does not require a significant and immediate answer from the ProtonMail team, to sign your name (I will) at the bottom of your response. If you can’t do that, perhaps provide a burner email address.
Dan Ehrlich
dan@ehrlichserver.com
CISSP, CCSP, CISM
EDIT: spacing between my signature, change of comment to commentS
It has been known for some time that TOTP 6 digit codes are easy to intercept. SMS Codes can also be intercepted, or gained via SSB7 vulns/ SIM jacking. This made things like Google Authenticator or Authy more resilient but certainly still quite vulnerable.
To intercept and exploit MFA in ProtonMail would absolutely trivial for a skilled single person to do. DNS poisoning + this github library would be all you needed: https://github.com/kgretzky/evilginx2
EDIT: replaced quotemark with asterisk
not having yubikey support is obviously not "very very scary" since most people (even on hn) don't have yubikeys and we don't run around with our tails between our legs.
many reasons can lead to not supporting yubikey yet, including the simplest, which is that it's lower on the priority list for a resource-constrained organization. or another likely explanation: yubikey has unsolved ux issues that keep it a niche product (for now), so demand simply isn't there.
this seems to be an important issue for you, so if you want to effect change, then you need to come across as well-reasoned, not fud-filled. (edit: and don't let perfect be the enemy of good.)
But even if email-via-notification worked, it is still pretty much unusable. My usecase is to get to wifi, download emails and get offline, but with Proton mail I'd have to be super careful not to have my app open when enabling connection to wifi, otherwise it instantly downloads all headers and shows no notification, because app is in a foreground, after that there is simply no way to download message bodies other than opening them one by one in all folders. Surprisingly support saw not problem with this UX either.
So whilst it might have been meant callously, from my third party glance it seems quite important.
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.
Ideally, pushing the APK to multiple distribution channels is mostly a one-time job to integrate with their build and deploy pipelines and then it's relatively business-as-usual, so I would imagine it won't take away a lot from development effort in other places once up & running.
As a non-Google Play user, I'm installing via Aptoide (a platform I don't _really_ trust yet) and relying on signatures to validate that the package is valid. Any moves by ProtonMail to offer '1st party' distributions (e.g. F-Droid) is really welcome.