I wouldn't expect much from a third party shipping provider in regard of data keeping, their system most of the time are sloppily created.

The 90 day data retention policy is from Trezor's own intiative as far as I know, if the retention period were shorter, maybe they could've negotiated for an even shorter data retention from their shipping partner as well.

The GDPR law itself only tell companies to keep data no longer than necessary, 90 days is pretty long time for a shipping log, they could've made it shorter especially since this breach covers EU customer which is very close to where the hardware shipped from.

They are currently working on anonymous delivery option but honestly, I would've expected them to create such thing from a long time ago.

Trezor manufactured hardware wallet, but their business is also very close to their customer's privacy which should make them self conscious to trim on all those logs and retention policy.

It is possible to buy directly from the manufacturer and still maintain privacy. The thing is so simple that I don't understand why people even order such things in their own name and address. All you need to do is arrange a PO Box and choose Bitcoin as payment.

From personal experience, I can say that Trezor supports this method of delivery, and so do many other manufacturers.

Ah FFS - looks like the weakest link in the chain got compromised - the fuck1n shipper.

I have a couple of Trezor's and the last time I bought one was about 4 years ago, I'm guessing
but hoping the 11k+ addresses are more recent than that?

Really sorry for all who end up compromised. This kickstarts everyone into examining their
security setup.


Thats sound advice and should be a default for everyone to use. If anyone gets compromised
hope and pray the scumbags arent clued into the hidden wallet.

No emails Trezor related official or scam ATM - thankfully

If thieves physically attack someone in their house/apartment and are looking for cryptocurrencies, then it can be assumed that they know that it is possible to have hidden wallets. There are very convincing ways to get what they want, especially if they threaten to torture your family members or yourself.

Most people will give in very quickly, so in the end it's just a matter of time.

In business reputations are everything so ShipMonk could go out of business because of the leak. 11,742 customer names, email addresses, phone numbers and shipping addresses were leaked. 1,947 customer names, cities and email addresses without shipping addresses were leaked.

If thieves broke in to steal crypto they will not blink when hurting people. They would not go through the trouble of breaking in unless they left with the crypto so who will accept being tortured or watching their family being tortured. They will hand over the crypto before they get hurt.

Ultimately, the fault lies with shipping provider, not Trezor. In my view, Trezor did its best to minimize the negative consequences of such a data leak (such as reducing the data retention period to 90 days), although this offers little consolation to those affected.

It raises doubts as to how this could actually be implemented in the current landscape. But let’s wait for the announcement; after all, Trezor wouldn’t make such claims unless they had a "workable" idea. I’m genuinely curious to see what they come up with and whether it could serve as a "starting point" for other manufacturers to adopt a similar approach.

But my main question is: how will local regulators react? Just imagine, parcels being sent between anonymous senders and recipients. It’s like Monero for the postal service. If I were a regulator, I’d want to ban the whole idea.

Therefore, it is best to have wallet #1 (comprising both a visible and a hidden wallet) that you are prepared to hand over if faced with a highly convincing demand to surrender your funds. You should also maintain wallets #2, #3, #4, and so on - as many as you wish. This constitutes risk diversification. How this is implemented is entirely up to the user, as the app allows for the creation of multiple hidden wallets; alternatively, you could use physically separate wallets. Naturally, you should not store these wallets (or the data associated with them, such as seed-phrases and passphrases) in the same location.

Attackers don't always have a great deal of time; consequently, if a victim hands over both the visible and hidden wallets, the attackers are unlikely to search for others - provided, of course, that they don't know the exact amount of assets being held.

It’s just that no one thought the personal and delivery data associated with hardware wallets (oh, what a surprise!) would be of interest to malicious actors - since it turns out to be the "weakest link" regarding the confidentiality and privacy of cryptocurrency owners.

You are right of course, we have absolutely zero control over how our data is handled once it goes
online. And its sad/annoying that there is a monetary value in selling that data and it ending up in
the wrong hands.

But I would have expected Trezor to act differently based on their business model they would be
concerned enough about customers data to make sure it was treated according to their statements.


Couldnt the same statement from their website be applied to our data and ensure that their agent
ShipMonk adhere to some form of data removal? obviously not, it all comes down to margins and
profits and less about customer data safety.


In this you are right also.

Apparently, that 90-day window is the shortest period to cover not just the delivery, but also the sending of replacements (if any hardware wallets are returned) and refunds.
^{- Refer to the FAQ section of the provided link in the opening post.}

Same here and I've seen some users argue that there aren't any official resellers where they live ^{[unfortunately, some of them prefer not to drive to another city or travel to another country to buy a HW, then they act surprised when such things happen]}.