Confidentiality at FastMail

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by moe on Monday December 15, 2014 @10:13PM (#8755714)

We have spelled out in our privacy policy and public communications that we don’t participate in blanket surveillance. We are an Australian company, and to participate in such programs would be in violation of Australian law.

Are you really this naive?

Australia is a member of Five Eyes[1]. Your local laws don't apply to intelligence agencies.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by robn_fastmail on Monday December 15, 2014 @10:34PM (#8755760)

You've completely misunderstood the line you quote. FastMail as a company do not participate in blanket surveillance. We can't control the actions of any one else, governments or otherwise.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by moe on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @12:40AM (#8755998)

You say "FastMail as a company do not participate in blanket surveillance". And then, in your next sentence, you admit that this is actually not under your control.

Why do you keep trying to make it sound as if FastMail had a choice in the matter even though you know that it doesn't?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by robn_fastmail on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @12:52AM (#8756021)

I said governments and other third-party actors are not under our control. I never ever said that FastMail was not under our control.

We do not participate in blanket surveillance.

I am not sure how to make it any clearer than that. Perhaps you could tell me what you'd like us to say, and then I can tell you whether or not that's something we agree with?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by moe on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @01:10AM (#8756051)

Perhaps you could tell me what you'd like us to say

I'd just like you to not use phrases like "We do not participate in blanket surveillance" in your marketing. It's dishonest and misleading. It's an empty promise.

FastMail will participate in blanket surveillance if and when the right papers are served to you.

And what then? Will you, personally, risk your ass to tell us the bad news, even if you are under gag order?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by robn_fastmail on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @01:34AM (#8756106)

Our current advice is that we are bound by the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Neither of these contain provisions that would allow indiscriminate capture of communications. You can read more about how we understand and apply this in our privacy policy:

  https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html

If you're talking to the proposed amendments to the TIA Act that are currently before Parliament then I can't really offer you much since the bills have not been passed and if they are passed, what's before Parliament might not be the final text.

So given that there is no legal means by which we can be asked to participate in blanket surveillance, it is entirely accurate to say that we do not.

If the legal situation changes then naturally we will make any necessary changes to our privacy policy and inform our customers of this.

If you're looking for us to commit to never ever doing something even if the law changes in the future to make that thing a requirement, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. But I hope you also see that that would be a rather silly commitment to make given its entirely hypothetical nature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by schoen on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @01:21AM (#8756079)

It might be possible and reasonable to interpret the statement "We do not participate in blanket surveillance" as a kind of warrant canary.

The status and efficacy of warrant canaries in various jurisdiction is a subject of much debate, but if you think they have meaning coming from these people in this jurisdiction, it looks like you've got one there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Confidentiality at FastMail by middleclick on Tuesday December 16, 2014 @12:34AM (#8755986)

(Disclosure: I am a paying FastMail customer) Is there any reason why you put the sender's IP address when sending out a mail via SMTP? Sure you want to keep logs, but why put the IP address of people like me who pay you for the service (and thus, won't spam or anything)

[ Parent | on HN ]