> FYI you have about 1.5 hours to edit your post. You may want to do that, because otherwise it will probably scare off most informed potential customers who read it.
(The above post was, curiously, edited very slightly before I was able to reply.)
It's possible brongondwana is taking some of the discussion here personally, but most people invested emotionally in their company are going to feel some need to defend their decisions against criticism they see as invalid or misplaced. I can't help but feel that some of your post is also somewhat emotionally-charged. I apologize if I'm misreading it.
Regardless, to play devil's advocate, both of the FastMail employees have a point (I also fail to see how they're being "mean;" maybe it's a cultural difference?). While they may not be a huge company with a great deal of leverage with the right government officials, I think such criticism levied against them is indeed kneejerk and perhaps a touch myopic. It's ignoring the greater story at large, which is the souring of US policy abroad, particularly among our allies. As an example, an enterprising Australian politician who wanted to make a name for his or her self could certainly take any such incidents against FastMail and use them as political leverage.
I can only imagine just how incendiary such headlines might become: US Seizes Australian Servers in NSA/FBI/Scary-three-letter-name US Agency Sting Operation. That'd go over real well, especially among Commonwealth nations.
I would submit to you (and others) that the best means of debating this would be to research case law and find examples where US courts upheld government actions against foreign assets held or based in the US. IANAL, but I can't help myself from thinking that such a foundation would be much better than accusing one side in particular of being "mean."