4 ms·
I'd recommend against Australian based - There are laws that state companies must be able to decrypt encrypted user data if required, and for a backdoor to be i
by dankwizard 5y ago
I'd recommend against Australian based - There are laws that state companies must be able to decrypt encrypted user data if required, and for a backdoor to be in place if they require access.
A "Data Disruption Warrant" allows them to add, copy, delete or modify your data. "Account Takeover Warrant" will remove your access to an account but still allow them full access
- uhtred 5y agoIf I was going to send truly sensitive information I wouldn't use email anyway, or I would but with gpg encryption, so I'm not too worried about the fact that fastmail might allow some government agency access. What fastmail will offer is privacy from 3rd parties such as advertisers and data brokers.
- dividedbyzero 5y agoThere have been attempts by police where I live to exploit such setups as loopholes to request data from companies in foreign jurisdictions that they wouldn't be able to obtain from domestic ones, and since there is no "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine over here, such evidence has actually been admitted in court, or at the least used to enable parallel construction. Given that the Aussies are doubling down on their police state, I'd rather not expose myself to such shenanigans (and if my data ends up in some predictive policing data warehouse, I'd prefer if it was just one, not two). As for advertisement surveillance, I'd have to take Fastmail's word, whereas with a domestic provider, there's the GDPR that is a lot harder to evade for them than for some Australian company.