3 ms·
To me it's more disappointing that they actually considered meeting the demands of the regulatory body. I'd have simply blocked Russia after the loss in court.
by sidlls 5y ago
To me it's more disappointing that they actually considered meeting the demands of the regulatory body. I'd have simply blocked Russia after the loss in court.
Also, why should Fastmail expose itself any further, in any way as a target of Russia's corrupt dictatorship? It does suck for those Russians impacted. They should turn their ire toward the real problem though: their government.
- ZoomZoomZoom 5y ago> why should Fastmail expose itself any further Expose to what exactly? Sanctions, neural-gas attacks or nuclear weapons? Does Russia have any legal or technical levers which could potentially harm Fastmail business?
- UseStrict 5y agoI mean, I legitimately wouldn't be surprised if they took political prisoners if Fastmail showed up to court to fight, or hammer out an agreement. Let alone what they would end up having to submit to while operating within the country. Russia is known to be pretty hostile towards the west.
- mjthompson 5y agoI thought this too. On the other hand, it does make sense to them to publicly claim that the reason they moved out was for technical rather than political reasons. It might not make themselves a highly attractive target for a retaliatory DDoS attack.
- tzs 5y agoWhat if they could meet the regulations without it costing too much and without exposing them to risk of compromising privacy and security? I don't see why you find it disappointing that they checked to see if that was the case rather than immediately pulling out.