Wire transfer can still go through intermediaries, although I generally don't think these companies are in the business of selling data.
For example, a bank can use a service to connect to a scheme (say SEPA, or FPS, or whatever).
Source: I have been employed by a company who does this.
Yes, tuta encrypts the subject, which is not encrypted in Proton for example.
So, TLS is just a point-to-point encryption protocol, it doesn't prevent anybody of the parties involved from having access to the content. Once the email is encrypted with PGP, Proton loses permanently access to this content.
So this is pretty much what happens with a Gmail <-> Outlook and a Gmail <-> Proton email.
Gmail to outlook:
A writes the email in their editor <- TLS -> Google servers <-TLS-> outlook servers <-TLS-> B reads the email. While every communication is encrypted with TLS, every server has access to its content. Every time B accesses the email from outlook servers (I.e., their inbox), the data is transferred with TLS, but outlook is the "other end of the tunnel", so it has access to this content.
Gmail to Proton:
A writes the email in their editor <- TLS -> Google servers <-TLS-> Proton servers -> encrypt original message with B's public key and discard original -> send to B inbox -> Proton client decrypts email -> B accesses it.
So yes, it is
about making sure your data on the servers stays safe even if someone gains access
As long as you consider the email provider part of those potential "someone".
The way I would say it essentially is that PGP encryption (even in cases where the original messages was not using it) still gives you the confidentiality property of PGP, even without the integrity and non-repudiation properties (which are not possible to guarantee with respect of the original message of course). In other words, the biggest difference is that the email provider doesn't have access to your stuff.
Fun fact: Fascism is not thinking republicans will do better than democrats in pursuing antitrust battles against big tech for the benefit of smaller businesses.
Please don't use this word at random, plenty of people in my country (and many others) died fighting fascism.
If the authoritarian one does better than the conservative one in some regard, there should be the moral honesty to admit it and demand better. If it's not possible to do this, the political discourse is completely sterile, and there is no accountability for anybody. Which is exactly what the american political discourse looks like from outside. Italian politics is messed up, but I can't even imagine someone being attacked and labeled as a fascist/Meloni supporter for saying that Meloni government did one thing better than previous government or another party.
Also this whole thing happened before the government formed.
Supporting his choices and the Republican party at large is the problematic part. I don't care if he loves Trump or not.
He supported one choice, and for motivated reasons. You can disagree. It doesn't matter to me, but saying that republicans can do better than democrats in fighting big tech in the antitrust space doesn't make you a trump supporter. Especially when democrats shat their pants within this space.
Also I know you don't care, but the person I was responding to misrepresented the facts saying that he loves Trump.
So yeah, this opinion doesn't make anybody a fascist, a Nazi, a Trump lover etc. It's a totally legitimate critique of democrats actions, couple with an (unwarranted, in my opinion) optimistic take on republicans, in a specific context.
The fact that the american political debate is so toxic that even expressing this opinion is a problem is something to reflect on. Tons of people talking about democrats having faults (but republican being worse), but when someone points out actual things that historically Republicans did better than democrats (again, the very narrow context of antitrust vs big tech, which Republicans pushed because twitter, google etc. were mostly dem-leaning years ago) immediately the pitchforks are taken.
To be precise, even when an email is not from Proton user, they encrypt it with ypur public key, send it to you and delete it (they call it zero access). Which is the best you can get. Also managing PGP keys, especially on multiple devices is a pain.
There is not a single comment either on reddit or elsewhere that shows love for Trump. Supporting a Trump's choice doesn't mean supporting Trump.
I know the facts.
And that's why I am calling you out for misrepresenting the facts. There is just no way that tweet can be interpreted as a "rant to say he loves trump".
So, "there has been a controversy about a tweet from the CEO who praises Trump's pick for antitrust and saw it as a confirmation that republicans are more likely to pursue antitrust battles against big tech, compared to democrats" =/= "the CEO went on a rant to say how he loves Trump".
The tweet (can a tweet even qualify as a rant, given the length?):
Great pick by @readDonaldTrump. 10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys [small businesses, n.d.r. as explained on reddit], but today the tables have completely turned. People forget that the current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.
A rant about how he loves Trump?
How is this even a conversation... Imagine this level of CW on a newspaper. You basically would have 30 CW per article.
I think this is way overcompensating. There is a difference between putting generally disturbing content being a CW and putting anything remotely upsetting behind a CW. The latter is an overcompensation that leads to people avoiding any chance of being uncomfortable.
So when you said
You meant Trump...Sorry, I am going to doubt that. I am quite sure that sentence meant "money you pay to Proton go to their CEO (a fascist)". Why money would go to Trump otherwise...is Proton sponsoring Trump? Hence my comment.
Alternatively, your comment was completely off-topic and unrelated to the post. Possible, I simply assumed you were not lost on the internet.