alt Hacker News> Phrack reached out to Proton in private multiple times, and Proton ghosted them.
According to Proton's response in the linked reddit post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227356
They say: "Regarding Phrack’s claim on contacting our legal team 8 times: this is not true. We have only received two emails to our legal team inbox, last one on Sep 6 with a 48-hour deadline. This is unrealistic for a company the size of Proton, especially since the message was sent to our legal team inbox on a Saturday, rather than through the proper customer support channels."
Replies
To be honest, I've found Proton's public customer service representatives to be very duplicitous, so it's hard to take their word at face value. It's pretty ridiculous to see their response to legitimate concerns start with: "That doesn't sound right..." 80-90% of the time.
> a 48-hour deadline. This is unrealistic for a company the size of Proton
and yet suspending the account...
[flagged]
Sorry but doubt.
The whole "we have only received two emails" is a classic move of every company caught with their pants down. Considering Proton's history, they don't get the benefit of the doubt on this one.
As for the "company size excuse" sorry but considering the business you claim to be in (the private and secure email), having an on-call skeleton crew legal team available over the weekend for urgent requests is a bare minimum (and I'm pretty sure they have people available to hand over everything the cops request if "the proper process is followed").
Remember that they have turned over information in less than 24 hours before (for what they call an extreme case of course). So the "size" excuse doesn't hold. Doesn't matter how urgent it is, if they are the small bean they claim they are, there is no chance they can have a turnaround of less than 24 hours.
Again, it's not what they did that's the biggest issue, it's the coverup. Just like last time they got in hot water. Because the coverup raises a lot more questions.
You'll note that Proton's PR only mentions the second date - " last one on Sep 6 with a 48-hour deadline."
Proton doesn't mention that the first email from Phrack which Proton ignored was weeks prior to that, which is what led to the second email in the first place.
You'll also note that Proton doesn't mention that their Abuse Team refused to re-anable the account after the article author did the appeals process, as per Phrack's timeline at the top of their article.