4 ms·

Even being stored in EU doesn't preclude your data from being targeted by signals intelligence. Which is different than requiring US based companies to provide

Even being stored in EU doesn't preclude your data from being targeted by signals intelligence. Which is different than requiring US based companies to provide non-US data to American government. Does fastmail have a US presence? If no - then they're not bound at all by US jurisdiction.

america_sux 1mo ago
As an Australian, all I can say is stop being naive.
petcat 1mo ago
> Does fastmail have a US presence? If no - then they're not bound at all by US jurisdiction. This hasn't been true for several years. All Australian companies (and UK companies) are under jurisdiction of the US Cloud Act. Just the same as American companies are. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/cloud-act-agreement-between-governments-us-and-australia https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/cloud-act-agre...
- inigyou 1mo ago
  No, it would be a different act in each country. They didn't even manage to extradite Kim Dotcom for years.
  - petcat 1mo ago
    Kim dotcom was extradited from New Zealand, not Australia. They're different places.
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      They're both Five Eyes
      - petcat 1mo ago
        Sure, but the point was that the US doesn't even need to exercise their capabilities under the five eyes treaty. They have a separate Cloud act agreement with Australia already which is a more direct route to get what they want.
defrost 1mo ago
Meanwhile, in realPolitik, they are Australian, they are subject to AU government pressure, and the AU government is deeply intertwined with and compliant to US government wishes, AUKUS, Pine Gap, Harold Holt Sub communications, Over the horizon radar on China, etc. See: https://roncobb.net/img/cartoons/aus/k5092-on-Tucker_Box-cuu-au.jpg https://roncobb.net/img/cartoons/aus/k5092-on-Tucker_Box-cuu...
perpetuallunch 1mo ago
The question isn’t whether a service has a presence in the sense of employees or regional office, or headquarters. The question is: do they office services to residents of said country / state. If so they may well be subject to certain laws that, if broken, could result in penalties up to an including extradition of the responsible officers.

america_sux 1mo ago

As an Australian, all I can say is stop being naive.

petcat 1mo ago

> Does fastmail have a US presence? If no - then they're not bound at all by US jurisdiction. This hasn't been true for several years. All Australian companies (and UK companies) are under jurisdiction of the US Cloud Act. Just the same as American companies are. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/cloud-act-agreement-between-governments-us-and-australia https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-oia/cloud-act-agre...

inigyou 1mo ago
No, it would be a different act in each country. They didn't even manage to extradite Kim Dotcom for years.
- petcat 1mo ago
  Kim dotcom was extradited from New Zealand, not Australia. They're different places.
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    They're both Five Eyes
    - petcat 1mo ago
      Sure, but the point was that the US doesn't even need to exercise their capabilities under the five eyes treaty. They have a separate Cloud act agreement with Australia already which is a more direct route to get what they want.

defrost 1mo ago

Meanwhile, in realPolitik, they are Australian, they are subject to AU government pressure, and the AU government is deeply intertwined with and compliant to US government wishes, AUKUS, Pine Gap, Harold Holt Sub communications, Over the horizon radar on China, etc. See: https://roncobb.net/img/cartoons/aus/k5092-on-Tucker_Box-cuu-au.jpg https://roncobb.net/img/cartoons/aus/k5092-on-Tucker_Box-cuu...

perpetuallunch 1mo ago

The question isn’t whether a service has a presence in the sense of employees or regional office, or headquarters. The question is: do they office services to residents of said country / state. If so they may well be subject to certain laws that, if broken, could result in penalties up to an including extradition of the responsible officers.