robn_fastmail

11 ms·

1. 121.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   Actually we did clearly mention it: "Our colocation providers could be compelled to give physical access to our servers." But in the very next paragraph: "These are not things we can protect against directly but
2. 122.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   I would argue that section 29 is very narrow in its scope, and allows for disclosure once an investigation is completed, and allows for disclosure to an attorney, whereas my understanding of an NSL is that it can order pretty much anything
3. 123.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6506626
4. 124.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   > Has the headline on HN been updated? Because both you and brongondwana talk about it being sensationalist, where I see it as just being a summary of the most salient part of what you have to say. To my mind it was one of the least inte
5. 125.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   If I was an evil-doer/dissident I wouldn't be trusting my life to the collective wisdom of the internet ;)
6. 126.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   Because most of our customers are in the US. If your goal is to provide the fastest service around, it helps to put your servers near your users.
7. 127.▲
   by robn_fastmail 13y ago

   Hi, FastMail employee and author of (most of) that blog post here. Just so we're clear, the point of this post was not that we don't think the rules don't apply to us. Instead we're trying to make it clear where position