

FastMail is not required to implement the Australian metadata retention laws - NeutronBoy
http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/04/09/fastmail-is-not-required-to-implement-the-australian-metadata-retention-laws/

======
junto
Whilst there appears to have been a great deal of thought put into the legal
analysis by FastMail to exclude themselves from these new laws, I'm sure that
should the Australian government see a requirement for FastMail to retain
emails, then a court case and government lawyers will make an alternative
case.

Interesting that FastMail recently went out to say that they don't fall under
US laws either and don't have to comply with a US NSL:
[http://blog.fastmail.com/2013/10/07/fastmails-servers-are-
in...](http://blog.fastmail.com/2013/10/07/fastmails-servers-are-in-the-us-
what-this-means-for-you/)

I'm starting to wonder which laws FastMail do fall under. Denial is a
wonderful thing until it slaps you across the face like a wet fish.

I'd like to add, that I like FastMail as a company and I deeply dislike the
concept of bulk data retention. However, rather than FastMail state which laws
they don't fall under, I'd like to know which ones (from which countries) that
DO apply.

~~~
robn_fastmail
As an Australian company, we fall under applicable Australian law. The new
data retention regime is not applicable to us (we believe) because if the
reasons outlined in the blog post, that is, we don't meet the criteria
necessary for the new rules to apply to us.

Basically, its business as usual. With an appropriate Australian warrant, we
will hand over user data (content and metadata). It's been like this for
years. See our privacy policy for details.

[https://www.fastmail.com/about/privacy.html](https://www.fastmail.com/about/privacy.html)

~~~
junto
Thank you for clarifying that.

