5 ms·
This is correct. Fastmail have actually spoken about this, and their silence on any particular topic can possibly be seen as a canary. They're a great company t
by Intermernet 4y ago
This is correct. Fastmail have actually spoken about this, and their silence on any particular topic can possibly be seen as a canary. They're a great company trying to survive in a hostile environment. I really hope that the new Australian federal government will get around to winding back some of the draconian laws the previous mob brought in, but I'm not holding my breath.
- Kalanos 4y agoI too have heard about many surprisingly draconian policies in australia
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoIt is not correct. In order to need a backdoor, the service would have to be E2E in the first place, which it is not. Uninformed HNers bring this up on every Fastmail thread like it's a big deal when it has zero actual impact on Fastmail at all.
- phpisthebest 4y agoA government forcing backdoors into E2E is always a big deal, not with standing on if it impacts fast mail or not
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoBut this is a Fastmail thread, so a government forcing backdoors into E2E is an off-topic comment, actually.
- NegativeK 4y agoE2E isn't a requirement for something to be called a backdoor, even though governments are constantly demanding E2E backdoors. An attacker having shell access or a government getting plaintext dumps of whatever email conversations they want (when users don't expect it) are perfect examples of backdoors. AT&T giving the NSA a secret room for them to suck up all comms, encrypted are not, is also a classic example.
- aldonius 4y agoDefinitely not holding my breath. Every time the Coalition say the magic words "national security" Labor jump without even stopping to ask "how high".