Proton Mail Suspended Journalist Accounts At Request of Cybersecurity Agency (theintercept.com)
(Friday September 12, 2025 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
from the behind-the-scenes dept.)
- Reference: 0179194538
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/09/12/230259/proton-mail-suspended-journalist-accounts-at-request-of-cybersecurity-agency
- Source link: https://theintercept.com/2025/09/12/proton-mail-journalist-accounts-suspended/
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Intercept:
> The company behind the Proton Mail email service, Proton, [1]describes itself as a "neutral and safe haven for your personal data, committed to defending your freedom." But last month, Proton [2]disabled email accounts belonging to journalists reporting on security breaches of various South Korean government computer systems following a complaint by an unspecified cybersecurity agency. After a public outcry, and multiple weeks, the journalists' accounts were eventually reinstated -- but the reporters and editors involved still want answers on how and why Proton decided to shut down the accounts in the first place.
>
> Martin Shelton, deputy director of digital security at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, highlighted that numerous newsrooms use Proton's services as alternatives to something like Gmail "specifically to avoid situations like this," pointing out that "While it's good to see that Proton is reconsidering account suspensions, journalists are among the users who need these and similar tools most." Newsrooms like The Intercept, the Boston Globe, and the Tampa Bay Times all rely on Proton Mail for emailed tip submissions. Shelton noted that perhaps Proton should "prioritize responding to journalists about account suspensions privately, rather than when they go viral." On Reddit, Proton's official account [3]stated that "Proton did not knowingly block journalists' email accounts" and that the "situation has unfortunately been blown out of proportion."
>
> The two journalists whose accounts were disabled were working on [4]an article published in the August issue of the long-running hacker zine Phrack. The story described how a sophisticated hacking operation -- what's known in cybersecurity parlance as an APT, or advanced persistent threat -- had wormed its way into a number of South Korean computer networks, including those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the military Defense Counterintelligence Command, or DCC. The journalists, who published their story under the names Saber and cyb0rg, describe the hack as being consistent with the work of Kimsuky, a notorious North Korean state-backed APT [5]sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2023. As they pieced the story together, emails viewed by The Intercept show that the authors followed cybersecurity best practices and conducted what's known as responsible disclosure: notifying affected parties that a vulnerability has been discovered in their systems prior to publicizing the incident.
Phrack said the account suspensions created a "real impact to the author. The author was unable to answer media requests about the article." Phrack noted that the co-authors were already working with affected South Korean organizations on responsible disclosure and system fixes. "All this was denied and ruined by Proton," Phrack stated.
Phrack editors said that the incident leaves them "concerned what this means to other whistleblowers or journalists. The community needs assurance that Proton does not disable accounts unless Proton has a court order or the crime (or ToS violation) is apparent."
[1] https://proton.me/#:~:text=We%20are%20a%20neutral%20and%20safe%20haven%20for%20your%20personal%20data%2C%20committed%20to%20defending%20your%20freedom
[2] https://theintercept.com/2025/09/12/proton-mail-journalist-accounts-suspended/
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1nd1nrc/is_that_true/ndg68pz/
[4] https://phrack.org/issues/72/7_md
[5] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1938
> The company behind the Proton Mail email service, Proton, [1]describes itself as a "neutral and safe haven for your personal data, committed to defending your freedom." But last month, Proton [2]disabled email accounts belonging to journalists reporting on security breaches of various South Korean government computer systems following a complaint by an unspecified cybersecurity agency. After a public outcry, and multiple weeks, the journalists' accounts were eventually reinstated -- but the reporters and editors involved still want answers on how and why Proton decided to shut down the accounts in the first place.
>
> Martin Shelton, deputy director of digital security at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, highlighted that numerous newsrooms use Proton's services as alternatives to something like Gmail "specifically to avoid situations like this," pointing out that "While it's good to see that Proton is reconsidering account suspensions, journalists are among the users who need these and similar tools most." Newsrooms like The Intercept, the Boston Globe, and the Tampa Bay Times all rely on Proton Mail for emailed tip submissions. Shelton noted that perhaps Proton should "prioritize responding to journalists about account suspensions privately, rather than when they go viral." On Reddit, Proton's official account [3]stated that "Proton did not knowingly block journalists' email accounts" and that the "situation has unfortunately been blown out of proportion."
>
> The two journalists whose accounts were disabled were working on [4]an article published in the August issue of the long-running hacker zine Phrack. The story described how a sophisticated hacking operation -- what's known in cybersecurity parlance as an APT, or advanced persistent threat -- had wormed its way into a number of South Korean computer networks, including those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the military Defense Counterintelligence Command, or DCC. The journalists, who published their story under the names Saber and cyb0rg, describe the hack as being consistent with the work of Kimsuky, a notorious North Korean state-backed APT [5]sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2023. As they pieced the story together, emails viewed by The Intercept show that the authors followed cybersecurity best practices and conducted what's known as responsible disclosure: notifying affected parties that a vulnerability has been discovered in their systems prior to publicizing the incident.
Phrack said the account suspensions created a "real impact to the author. The author was unable to answer media requests about the article." Phrack noted that the co-authors were already working with affected South Korean organizations on responsible disclosure and system fixes. "All this was denied and ruined by Proton," Phrack stated.
Phrack editors said that the incident leaves them "concerned what this means to other whistleblowers or journalists. The community needs assurance that Proton does not disable accounts unless Proton has a court order or the crime (or ToS violation) is apparent."
[1] https://proton.me/#:~:text=We%20are%20a%20neutral%20and%20safe%20haven%20for%20your%20personal%20data%2C%20committed%20to%20defending%20your%20freedom
[2] https://theintercept.com/2025/09/12/proton-mail-journalist-accounts-suspended/
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1nd1nrc/is_that_true/ndg68pz/
[4] https://phrack.org/issues/72/7_md
[5] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1938
Cause of course (Score:2)
by locater16 ( 2326718 )
If the for profit corporation is advertising how much more responsible of a corporation they are than the other corporations your first question should always be "if you like responsibility over profit so much, why are you a for profit corporation?"
Alternatives? (Score:2)
Is there a good one?