• poVoq
    link
    fedilink
    13 years ago

    Try a little harder at least. Just the surrounding publicity even for a lost court-case would have been a net benefit.

    Their explanation sound like “we couldn’t do anything against this legal over-reach because the entity that did the legal over-reach said that it was all legal and fine”, which when you think about it longer than 3 seconds is true for each and every case where the authorities request something. An internal “review” by a biased party involved in one side is not the same as a real test in court.

    • @k_o_t@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      33 years ago

      from my understanding it’s a legally binding order that they legally literally can’t appeal

      • poVoq
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        Yes that is what they claim, but in most jurisdictions there is no such thing as an unappealable order (only after it has been already once dismissed in court can the judge rule-out further appeals) and there usually is some official legal recourse despite what the authorities like to claim in their own self-interest.

        If there was a similar precedence case, which would have made chances in court extremely low, then they could have said so. But they basically admit by omission that they didn’t even try.

        • @k_o_t@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          33 years ago

          it’s not helpful to compare to the way this works in the rest of the world, because it doesn’t determine what’s exactly true in this case; I’m not an expert on swiss law by any means (lol), but I suspect that protonmail does have a lawyer proficient in swiss law, probably more than one, and i really doubt that what they tell is a lie

          if we are operating off of the assumption that they are bad guys only interested in money (which i personally don’t think is the case), they would very much care about pr, and to not fight the case and then lie about it is pretty much the worst pr they think of

          and if even if they did this foolish move, wouldn’t there be at least a few people who understand swiss law who would point out that this is a lie?

          • poVoq
            link
            fedilink
            33 years ago

            I didn’t say it is blatant lie, but probably one by omission. There probably really isn’t a strait-forward way to appeal it (legal authorities like to do that in cases they know they would get a lot of appeals otherwise), but what do you think would have happened if they had not complied? Usually that then forces a court case, during which they can lay out their reasons why they think this was legal over-reach on the side of the Swiss authorities and a judge would be forced to make a ruling on that.

            • @k_o_t@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              23 years ago

              hmm, i see your point, maybe we should ask pm themselves at /r/protonmail what would happen in that case 🤔