> I was live-tweeting the event, including the interesting presentation by public prosecutor Walder. The remark that ProtonMail was a (potential) PDCS would have been too trivial to be live-tweeted. The insight on the other hand that ProtonMail voluntarily offers assistance for real-time surveillance, was spectacular and I therefore live-tweeted the statement. In its transparency report, ProtonMail – as mentioned above – itself refers to at least one case of real-time surveillance.
Unless there is some massive conspiracy/cover-up involving a Swiss public prosecutor, the most likely explanation (the article is wrong) is probably the correct one.
The statement even matches your own transparency report where you describe a case of IP logging, a typical real-time surveillance measure:
'In April 2019, at the request of the Swiss judiciary in a case of clear criminal conduct, we enabled IP logging against a specific user account which is engaged in illegal activities which contravene Swiss law. Pursuant to Swiss law, the user in question will also be notified and afforded the opportunity to defend against this in court before the data can be used in criminal proceedings.'
(You mention April 2019, the statement by the state prosecutor was made at the beginning of May, i.e., he was probably really happy about your cooperation.)
We are not talking about a public televised event. We are talking about a statement during a presentation. It happens all time time: People talk, sometimes they talk too much.
No, why would it be? As you point out, they've disclosed turning on logging in response to a legal request. Why then deny the event?