Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by robn_fastmail | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

robn_fastmail

I just checked upstairs. The advice we have is roughly:

- ACC has judicial oversight

- its unclear how this interacts with the Telecommunications (Intercept and Access) Act

With my boss throwing in:

- law is a giant mess

- until you have two extremely well-funded parties disagreeing vehemently about the interpretation, you'll never get a final answer

We're still happy with our publicly-stated position. You might disagree, and I'm not really in a position to argue with you. Its my corporate masters with their necks on the line, and they seem relaxed about it. That's good enough for me :)

View on HN

Fair enough, I agree that these laws are a mess and you'll never get the final answer unless a disputed application of the Act is determined by the High Court.

But these laws have been active and in common use for over 10 years without a single public challenge. I also know that the ACC's interpretation of their own powers has been used to prevent suspects disclosing certain matters even to their own lawyers.

The fact that no high-profile judicial decisions have placed limits on what the ACC does indicates to me that the law is fairly settled in this area.

I just wanted to point out that the original statement "Australia does not have any equivalent to the US National Security Letter, so we cannot be forced to do something without being allowed to disclose it." does not seem well-founded.

I read the blog post and was nearly persuaded that fastmail might be better in than US providers on some level of privacy.

But now reading this exchange I now see that your company doesn't actually know the Australian law any better than it knows the US law, and now I feel that fastmail might actually be WORSE than a US company in terms of privacy. Thanks for letting us know.

The title of this post should be changed to:

FastMail’s servers are in the US – what this means for you -> absolutely nothing.

Either way, it makes your service completely vulnerable to the government's interpretation of the law. If they force you to disclose your customers' data in secret tomorrow, or face jail time, I have no doubts what your choice will be.

I'm not calling you a liar, btw, I just think you're naive/oblivious, and considering you just now discovered what ACC is and had to check with your lawyer (who isn't even sure how it interacts with other laws), I wouldn't use your service to send any critical information. Ever.

> If they force you to disclose your customers' data in secret tomorrow, or face jail time, I have no doubts what your choice will be.

We have no doubts either. The privacy policy clearly states we will give your data to the Australian authorities if supplied with the proper supporting documentation.

I didn't just find out about the ACC, though I wasn't aware of the details. But I'm not a lawyer, just a sysadmin, so I don't need to be. The "its not clear" bit is simply that there are two laws that appear to be in contradiction with each other. Its never been tested in court. And thus, its not clear. But we have confidence that what our position is legally supportable or we wouldn't be here.

Laws that appear to be in contradiction with each other, never tested in court -- so, yeah, quite like the US legal situation, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com