this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
158 points (89.5% liked)
Actually Infuriating
957 readers
41 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, what's the alternative here? The Swiss government, which they are subject to, issued a legal warrant. Any email provider you want to use will be subject to warrants. All of them.
They are technically incapable by design of complying with warrants for email data. In this case they were able to provide personally identifying payment data because the person paid for their account with... a credit card. They offer crypto payment options, and would not have been able to usefully comply had the person used that method.
The alternative is literally a single sentence: "That person paid by crypto, we have no payment details on file for them."
I get the sentiment, but no serious company is going to survive for very long lying to its government when it receives search warrants. This is not a realistic solution.