FastMail’s servers are in the US – what this means for you

Post by Wingman4l7 » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:53 AM UTC

westicle wrote: post #58

robn_fastmail wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that section 29 is very narrow in its scope, and allows for disclosure once an investigation is completed, and allows for disclosure to an attorney, whereas my understanding of an NSL is that it can order pretty much anything it wants without limitation. That seems quite different to me. But then, I'm not lawyer. You're probably not either. Which is why I keep telling people to get their own legal advic…

Actually I am a lawyer. In the past I have even advised clients who received ACC notices (they are more common than most people would think). Needless to say I was staggered at the scope of the powers granted. Forget about transparency, justice and the rule of law. If you receive one of these you can be compelled to give evidence or documents in secret, without judicial oversight or public scrutiny.

Post by Vivtek » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:54 AM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #12

andrewfong wrote: post #4

Note the obvious caveat though: "There are of course other avenues available to obtain your data. Our colocation providers could be compelled to give physical access to our servers. Network capturing devices could be installed. And in the worst case an attacker could simply force their way into the datacentre and physically remove our servers." As the colocation providers are based in the U.S., they would be subject…

How likely is it that Fastmail data could be obtained without anybody at Fastmail noticing? And the key point is that Fastmail cannot be complied to keep such an attempt secret - which is not the case for a US company.

Post by kijin » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:58 AM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #4

Note the obvious caveat though: "There are of course other avenues available to obtain your data. Our colocation providers could be compelled to give physical access to our servers. Network capturing devices could be installed. And in the worst case an attacker could simply force their way into the datacentre and physically remove our servers." As the colocation providers are based in the U.S., they would be subject…

Post by Wingman4l7 » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 8:04 AM UTC

Veratyr wrote: post #74

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "compelled", do you mean "divulge at the threat of guaranteed jail time" as in the UK's RIPA-based mandatory key disclosure law? Wikipedia seems to indicate it'll cost you 6 months in jail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#Australia

In the link he posted originally: "Penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for one year."

Post by hobbes » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 8:13 AM UTC

robn_fastmail wrote: post #33

lessnonymous wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Rob, Has the headline on HN been updated? Because both you and brongondwana talk about it being sensationalist, where I see it as just being a summary of the most salient part of what you have to say. Do you have Australian legal advice to back up your conclusions? (I agree with them, but would like to make sure we're talking more than the "gist" of the law)

> Has the headline on HN been updated? Because both you and brongondwana talk about it being sensationalist, where I see it as just being a summary of the most salient part of what you have to say. To my mind it was one of the least interesting parts of what we had to say. "Non-US company not bound by US law" - its hardly earth-shattering news. Would "Non-Senegalese company not bound by Senegal law" be as interesting…

  "We've made our position public, and we're satisfied that
 its an accurate reflection of our position and our
 understanding of Australian law. You must not rely on it as a legal basis
 for anything though"