> We should criticize PM for lying to their customers.
Lying about what exactly? They chose switzerland because it has excellent civil and privacy protection, not because it’s a lawless hellscape, and they never hid that and that they were under swiss law.
> They chose switzerland because it has excellent civil and privacy protection
Source for Switzerland being any better than other countries when it comes to human rights? A few examples come to mind that would suggest otherwise...
> not because it’s a lawless hellscape
How is protecting activists who try to change society for the better "a lawless hellscape"?
While there may be examples of activists being oppressed by Swiss law, in this particular incident activists where messing with others' property which is hardly changing society for the better.
1) We're talking about Protonmail cooperating with a random foreign police (via request from their local police) without any form of judicial oversight. As a hosting provider with big money like Protonmail, the only fair thing to go is to go to court to have a judge examine the legality of the request in detail (not just as a friendly police request) before you collaborate at all with them.
2) We're talking about a bunch of anti-gentrification activists who requisitionned/squatted empty buildings to house homeless people and serve food for the neighborhood. Those buildings were owned by a landowning mafia which, as you can see, has long-reaching arms: when was the last time you heard of Europol/Interpol being involved in the repression of a squat that lasted a few months? This is a clear case of political repression, not any ordinary criminal case.
While I have no data to discuss the second item, regarding the first item you seem to be misinformed. PM did _not_ cooperate with a random foreign police. PM had to execute on _their local authorities_ order, and judicial oversight was present - three authoritative entities in two countries had to approve the order. If this is not judicial oversight then my imagination fails to suggest what could serve as such oversight. And in their clarification PM state that there was no possibility to challenge the order in court (maybe because the order came from a court already?).
The key point is that any country could make a request through Interpol or the Europol. Proton mail bragged about their great fortune to be under Swiss law but it turns out it's subject to the lowest common denominator, a request through Interpol or Europol. What if Poland starts wanting to find out who whistleblowers are who have protonmail email addresses? Or China inevitably wants to unmask some democratic leader from Hong Kong?
> three authoritative entities in two countries had to approve the order
What's that worth when your entire judicial apparatus is corrupt (doesn't respect separation of executive/judicial branches) and all it takes is asking nicely to get a request granted?
> my imagination fails to suggest what could serve as such oversight
Protonmail did not have a chance to defend itself before the judge, to face the alleged lies of the prosecution. You may consider that's still a form of judicial oversight, i don't.
> no possibility to challenge the order in court
Yes there is. Don't collaborate. Send a notification that you're waiting for a judge hearing. Wait for news. Either case is closed and you're good, or you get summoned to court and you can argue you have no criminal intent but strongly doubted the legality of the request.
This may well be the case, as most police requests do. However, you're probably aware that these requests are somewhat-automatically approved by judges who have no time to examine them all, want to stay cozy with law enforcement (have very friendly relationships with prosecutors, despite that being against the separation of powers), and are counting on hosts to protest illegal requests.
> these requests are somewhat-automatically approved by judges
You said there was no judicial oversight. That is false. The claim that Swiss judges want to stay cozy with law enforcement requires a lot more support.
To me, being forced to compel with an order you had no chance to hear justification for, and/or had not chance to defend yourself against, is not "judicial oversight". It's an order signed by a judge alright, that doesn't make it "rule of law"-compliant.
> The claim that Swiss judges want to stay cozy with law enforcement requires a lot more support.
Unfortunately, there's very little serious studies of the corruption of the judicial system in the global north. There's massive scandals, but never wide anti-corruption schemes. You may be interested to read Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish, which is a very serious examination of why "Justice is an independent power" is a gross misrepresentation at best.
Lying about what exactly? They chose switzerland because it has excellent civil and privacy protection, not because it’s a lawless hellscape, and they never hid that and that they were under swiss law.