5 ms·
"We've made our position public, and we're satisfied that its an accurate reflection of our position and our understanding of Australian law. You must not rel
by hobbes 13y ago
"We've made our position public, and we're satisfied that
its an accurate reflection of our position and our
understanding of Australian law. You must not rely on it as a legal basis
for anything though"
I'm not sure if I see the value of you saying it, then. Why not get a lawyer to provide you with a position that can be relied upon?
- robn_fastmail 13y agoBecause its our advice. It was developed for us, taking our concerns into account. You need to get your own legal advice relevant to your own situation. Or put another way, I don't think "Your Honour, FastMail's lawyer said it was ok" is valid defense for anyone except us.
- hobbes 13y agoWho said that that would be a defense we would use? My point is that you have given advice, with the implication that it would soothe some of our concerns. And then, in the very next sentence, you've said, in effect, it's legally worthless. So, how exactly does your own advice to us help in any way whatsoever?
- corin_ 13y agoEven if that post was written entirely by lawyers, that still wouldn't make it legally binding.
- hobbes 13y agoIndeed. So, the point remains: what value does this advice have over against the advice from Google, etc? It's a rhetorical question, by the way.
- corin_ 13y agoIt's as useful as the degree to which you trust the company giving this advice. And that's always going to be the case regardless of who the company is and what they say.