It's surprising to me how many people don't get this.
"[W]e do not respond to legal requests from anywhere other than the Swiss authorities." is misleading because it implies the existence -- and ever-so-brave denial -- of legal requests from the FBI made directly to Proton, when that **never** actually happens because all requests go through the MLAT. They're boasting about denying a class of requests that has zero members. While neglecting to mention that the class of requests that they obey constitutes 100% of requests.
And this matters because it reflects poorly on Proton's honesty and candor. Users need clear information about what threats Proton's service protects against, and what threats it doesn't. If they aren't telling is the full truth in this matter, what else aren't they telling us?
More fundamentally, it casts doubt on their motives, values, and principles. Companies that would go to the mat for their users, even in the face of existential risk, Lavabit-style, are vanishingly rare. Few people expect that of Proton. So what are they then? Is Proton a company that at least *wants* to go to that mat for their users, but backs down in the face of existential risk? Or is it a company that's indifferent and disinclined to go to the mat for their users anyway? Their disingenuity here suggests their motives are mercenary and their values insincere.
On that topic, it would be interesting to know if Proton fought this subpoena before complying. Did they at least attempt the Swiss equivalent to a motion to quash? Or did they just roll over immediately?
(Here Proton tells us "Swiss authorities determined that the legal threshold was met because...," but doesn't tell us the context. Was that determination made in the course of a proceeding objecting to the subpoena, or in the course of the standard MLAT processing procedure? Was anyone present to argue the position that the standard was not met? And specifically which "authorities" made this determination?)
No, Proton isn't responsible for the Swiss MLAT regime. But they **are** responsible for telling the full, unvarnished truth about how they interact with that regime. And they did not.