I agree with this as well, though it will be buried deep in an individual thread. We don't like making knee-jerk responses to the political posturing by our po

I agree with this as well, though it will be buried deep in an individual thread. We don't like making knee-jerk responses to the political posturing by our politicians, because they don't influence what we see. Here's what I can tell you: * while in theory the new laws allow law enforcement to request information from a broad set of computers instead of a single computer, that actually makes sense as a representation of reality. The information for a single user on our system is already spread over multiple machines - 3 separate IMAP servers in a replica set, 4 different database servers in a replica set, plus at least one backup server. Requiring law enforcement to get 8 separate warrants for "all the data about user X on those 8 machines" would be patently stupid. * we haven't seen any change in the nature of requests coming from law enforcement, and we have no reason to expect them to change. * our position of fully cooperating with the Australian authorities if they present a lawful warrant for the data on an individual user, having obtained due cause, has not changed. We do not place ourselves above the courts. We do not implement dragnets, but we have provided data on individual users in response to warrants, and will continue to do so. This is quite clearly spelled out in our privacy policy. (edited: just formatting)