3 ms·
I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. The word "unlikely" isn't even in the post I linked. They could always decrypt your data. They don't nee
by Deimorz 7y ago
I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. The word "unlikely" isn't even in the post I linked.
They could always decrypt your data. They don't need to add a backdoor, because they've always had full access. Nothing changes at all.
- enriquto 7y ago> I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. The word "unlikely" isn't even in the post I linked. The crucial point of the post concerns the possibility that fastmail developers are forced to introduce secretly a government backdoor. This possibility is briefly dismissed as follows: > There are also concerns that individual employees may be forced to build a backdoor, without being able to alert their employer. While frightening for anyone working in technology, we believe this fear is largely unfounded [1]. Most organisations have practices (pair programming, code reviews, risk evaluations) that would reveal such behaviour quickly. The only reason given for the word "unfounded" is an article on zdnet [1], that explains the reasons why these backdoors are unlikely (but does not rule out the fact that they are possible). The word "unlikely" comes from the title of this article. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-encryption-laws-are-highly-unlikely-to-dragoon-employees-in-secret/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/australias-encryption-laws-are...
- Deimorz 7y agoThat's talking about other Australian companies. Again, Fastmail has absolutely no need for a backdoor, and will never be requested to add one. They already have full access, a backdoor wouldn't do anything. They have a frontdoor.
- enriquto 7y agoThanks, it is clear to me now. Of course fastmail do not explain this so clearly; instead they require a few pages of word salad to "decorate" this fact.