Yes -- even Mullvad -- which is precisely why they do not collect the data. Because if they did have the data, they would have to give it over, or they could go to prison.
Typically, courts will summon a specific person to comply with their request, often a corporate officer or director with a role or authority relevant to what is being requested. If they don't comply with their request, they can be held in contempt.
The specifics vary by country, but basically all legal systems require you to comply with what they say and impose penalties if you don't. I don't know if there are any countries where it's legal to ignore the courts, but I would imagine that their court systems don't work too well.
Courts, in the US at least, can hold an officer of a corporation personally responsible for violating a subpoena order, if they were in a position to comply with it and chose not to. It's not technically a piercing of the corporate veil (because they are being personally ordered to comply), but it's effectively the same thing.
It is, with this crowd, where data is currency. I literally have solitaire games, trying to get me to create server accounts, so that the authors can extract PiD from me.
Tech is full of people that make extremely good money, from other people's personal information, and they plug their ears and sing "La-la-laaaa-I-can't-hear-yooouuu-la-la-la", when confronted with information that says what they are doing has problems. Not just techhies. That's fairly basic human nature.
This is pretty much the embodiment of Upton Sinclair's quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
For my part, I don't collect any data that I don't need; even if it makes it more difficult to do stuff like administer a server.
It's only a problem if you don't want to be legally obligated to produce it. Either way, probably paying lawyer time for a response. Not that I disagree with you at all.
It's also a problem if you actually care about your users, and don't want to expose their data, in ways that could -literally- end up putting their lives in danger.
> And then 3 or 4 allies of the US passed laws enabling the government to require companies to develop tools or face prison time
My understanding is that Apple’s executives were surprised at the forcefulness of the opposition to their stand together with the meekness of public support.
(Having worked on private legislation, I get it. You work on privacy and like two people call their electeds because most people don’t care about privacy, while those who do are predominantly civically nihilists or lazy.)
