I said governments and other third-party actors are not under our control. I never ever said that FastMail was not under our control.
We do not participate in blanket surveillance.
I am not sure how to make it any clearer than that. Perhaps you could tell me what you'd like us to say, and then I can tell you whether or not that's something we agree with?
Perhaps you could tell me what you'd like us to say
I'd just like you to not use phrases like "We do not participate in blanket surveillance" in your marketing. It's dishonest and misleading. It's an empty promise.
FastMail will participate in blanket surveillance if and when the right papers are served to you.
And what then? Will you, personally, risk your ass to tell us the bad news, even if you are under gag order?
Our current advice is that we are bound by the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Neither of these contain provisions that would allow indiscriminate capture of communications. You can read more about how we understand and apply this in our privacy policy:
https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html
If you're talking to the proposed amendments to the TIA Act that are currently before Parliament then I can't really offer you much since the bills have not been passed and if they are passed, what's before Parliament might not be the final text.
So given that there is no legal means by which we can be asked to participate in blanket surveillance, it is entirely accurate to say that we do not.
If the legal situation changes then naturally we will make any necessary changes to our privacy policy and inform our customers of this.
If you're looking for us to commit to never ever doing something even if the law changes in the future to make that thing a requirement, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. But I hope you also see that that would be a rather silly commitment to make given its entirely hypothetical nature.
It might be possible and reasonable to interpret the statement "We do not participate in blanket surveillance" as a kind of warrant canary.
The status and efficacy of warrant canaries in various jurisdiction is a subject of much debate, but if you think they have meaning coming from these people in this jurisdiction, it looks like you've got one there.
We do not participate in blanket surveillance.
I am not sure how to make it any clearer than that. Perhaps you could tell me what you'd like us to say, and then I can tell you whether or not that's something we agree with?