Standard notes: what about don’t put all your eggs in one basket rule?
If the owner of the standard notes will now be a proton, doesn’t that contradict this principle? I have a proton email account but I don’t want it linked to my standard notes account. I don’t strongly trust companies that offer packaged services like google or Microsoft. I prefer to have one service from one company. I am afraid that now I will have to change where I save my notes. What do you guys think about this?
While I generally also try to live by that rule and only use Proton for its mail service. Having another Suite option that actually is private. Is what Proton needs to become for “normal” people to adapt to other options outside of Google, Microsoft etc…
What is standard notes exactly and why would anyone use it? I hadn’t heard of it before today’s proton announcement. Private files should stay on your own PC, preferably airgapped, not on someone else’s server .
@gamedeviancy I decided to change the way how I save my notes. More specifically: Markdown
I got accustomed to it on spezzit FWIW, even without knowing about it in the first place, but then it felt so natural. I even use it here on Friendica, despite it being mostly relied on BBCode.
Now, how do I enjoy it? There are certain apps that save your notes as Markdown files in any folder of your choosing. You can then sync that folder through a cloud storage provider or through Syncthing so you can have your notes available on any device. And that's it. If I do not like an app (even on one device) I switch to another. My notes stay with me an I can read them even in a normal text editor.
I did not encrypt my notes, but since these are just regular files, I assume you can use something like VeraCrypt to add the folder containing the notes in there and move them that way.
I have been doing passive research on proton to maybe make a switch… I agree with you. At this point, i think I’d rather have my required services with multiple/different providers and use syncthing in-house whenever possible.
Just depends on what works best for each of us. But personally, I agree with you. It’s not that I think one company owning a ton of the services is a bad thing in itself. But history has shown us that, when a company starts to dominate a certain market, they tend to start becoming tone-deaf to our interests, because they know we can’t (easily) switch and go somewhere else.
To be honest, I was really happy about the news. I love Standard Notes, and I think that Proton acquiring it bodes well for its longevity. Proton is so big now that it is difficult seeing them being bought by someone else. You cannot say the same about Standard Notes. And I would have died if one day we would have seen a “Skiff situation” with Standard Notes. With Proton it is different. It is s company that I really trust.
But I do 100% get the not all eggs in one basket point. In my personal case, I have opted not to use Proton’s VPN or Password Manager services. Specifically not to put all my eggs in the same basket.
I couldnt easily find financial data for Proton AG, but they are still tiny. 100m proton mail users vs 1.5b gmail users. If one of the really big players wanted to, I am sure they could make proton an extremely tempting offer.
Dont forget that 20 years ago, Google/GMail was well trusted as well, once Proton reaches a critical mass with sufficient lock-in, there is nothing stopping them going down the same path Google did.
You are right. There are no certainties in this matter. Proton’s values look and sound good. But things can change and big enough offers can be hard to resist. My revised point is then that since we now know that Standard Notes were open to being acquired, I am happy that it was by Proton and not somebody else 😉
I’m actually shocked at how big that userbase is for Proton. Your point stands that they’re comparatively small against the truly big players, but I would have guessed a few million proton users at most.
I’m on the opposite of that opinion. I’d love it if proton had a whole suite like Google drive and Google keep all bundled into one secure and private service.
Ok, but what does it mean, is that, when proton will be compromised, all of your data also can be compromised. When we have our data divided between different independent services, compromising one does not mean violating the others.
I don’t know about that. If I use Google to sign in to different separate services, if my Google account is compromised, then so are all the other services, no?
If they’re all independent services then it becomes a hassle. Having to have multiple apps or accounts to manage.
You make a valid point, but I think there should be some kind of middle ground between the two.
No, I’m not saying that I don’t trust proton at all. I think that they have great services but as I wrote in the title - don’t put all eggs in one basket.
I think I won’t trust any company with holding ALL my data.
If all your eggs are encrypted, having those eggs in one basket or five doesn’t matter from a security perspective. Its the same reason you wouldn’t split up your passwords to multiple password managers.
That being said the much more likely scenario is that at some point in your lifetime Protons values change (either by being purchased or new leadership) and you have to move on. That’s why, regardless of how good a providers security is, its good to have backups elsewhere.
There’s a lot of metadata Proton passes around, and two of their oldest flagship products (email and VPN) require you to put a lot of trust in one company. For email, you trust them to encrypt them without snooping. For VPN, you trust them to not collect logs about where you’re going.
And in the former case, they were compelled to give up at least a little data in the not-so-distant past.
It doesn’t matter what is being discussed, if its about proton the email incident gets brought up.
Here is the deal. No major company is going to break the law for its users. Had the activist been using proton vpn to create and access their email, Proton would not have had the info they were forced to give up. The takeaway from the story is bad opsec is usually what gets people caught whether its activists or hackers.
Whether you use Proton or someone else you will need to trust that service. If you don’t trust them, don’t use them. Its that simple, no need for conjured up FUD excuses.
I bring up “the email incident” because it’s a reminder that Proton may record stuff that’s not encrypted, which includes the vast majority of emails.
And it’s not to say that you wouldn’t trust it with one individual service, but whether it’s wise to trust it with so many services at once, from a security, privacy, and even monetary perspective.
Not every concern is FUD, and I think you’ll start seeing diminishing returns every time you repeat it.
Not every concern is but ones where concern is based solely on fear and hypotheticals are. This all eggs in one basket line of reasoning is FUD and has no real bearing in reality.
Even this email issue, it really has nothing to do with if you should trust proton in terms of OPs post. If you really believe Proton is going to sell you out, you wouldn’t use them anyway and Proton following the laws is something every legit business is going to do, not something specific to Proton. If you have the threat model of an activist you need to careful about your opsec as i explained in a previous comment.
Proton can see my traffic. I already know that. Any vpn provider you use could. Its not that i trust proton implicitly its that i trust them more then my ISP that would be able to see it if i did not use a vpn. Couple that with their record of audits and im not sure what else you could expect from them.
You wrote that if the activists used proton VPN to register their mail account, proton would not have the information he needed to pass on. It’s not true cause they would probably have the same metadata about them.
“All security is porous” is pure FUD reasoning and, completely disregards the security audits Proton does to make sure its not anything like LastPass.
Using LastPass as a strawman is not a compelling argument.
OP and You are also assuming if Proton was breached that it means all the user encrypted data would somehow be available to the malicious party which is also extremely unlikely.
Security audits do not guarantee security. They are just the best we have. Just as code reviews do not guarantee good and trustworthy code. In the end, we do not know what we do not know. In the end, every system has its weaknesses.
Sure I believe Proton is a reasonable supplier. Even with that Proton for example is on the record of giving out user info to governments. I am sure they did not meet the expectations of that activist.
My point is Proton did something every legit business would do.
If your threat model is such that governments are going after you, you should be aware enough to not create an email with an IP that identifies you. That email issue was bad opsec not some specific problem with Proton.
Well that is the point isn’t it. Companies are not very reliable. The only thing they can be relied on to do is whatever butters their bread and that can change at any time. There is also a PR component and a fact component and they do not always agree.
Proton is really no different. I seem to remember they changed what they said on their website after outing that activist. Presumably to be a little less misleading. Again, I am impressed with Proton but not infinitely impressed.
You seem to be avoiding the fact component, which is they have proven through audits, yearly, their security is what you would want in a service that holds your data and have decided to instead rely on one instance (in 10 years of that service being around), that has nothing to do with the issue and your own feeling of how companies operate (FUD).
Companies and businesses benefit from the bundling bias, which usually is an indication that consumers are losing out. By creating bundled packages that people do not fully take advantage of, businesses are getting more money than they usually would and reap a greater profit.
The successful deployment of a platform expansion strategy requires leveraging a customer group (composed primarily of end consumers) from one interaction to another, which would entail multiple contractual and technical tactics that differ in their degree of interference with customer choice. The more coercive these tactics are, the more they will resemble the effect that tying and bundling practices have on consumer behavior and thus the more likely to trigger competition law scrutiny.
Companies like Apple also keep people in their ecosystem by offering nice things upfront and then introducing sunk cost issues.
Add comment