[accatyyc]

Why? Fastmail always complied with warrants to get your data, so nothing changes because if this law. If you want to hide something, encrypt your e-mails before they reach Fastmail (and do the same regardless of provider you use, why trust anyone?)

[jolmg]

There is the change that warrants are apparently not needed anymore. The PDF linked in the article says that there's now no judicial oversight over these requests.

I haven't decided myself if I'll switch, but if I do, it's more of a matter of principle. I just don't like how the world is becoming more authoritarian-like, and I feel it will continue to move this way unless people demonstrate their unwillingness to put up with such policies.

[Semaphor]

Because, at least to articles I've seen, this could be read as the requirement to implement backdoors. And that would be different than what FM did before.

I actually thought about switching over this, but I found no service that gives me the same features that FM has (fast web interface, calendar, fido u2f, aliases, send as aliases, custom domains, dmarc SPF and all those acronyms, good support) even if I would be willing to pay whatever (and I was grandfathered into the old $70/2 years plan on FM)

[markstos]

It's a signal to Australia as well as to Fastmail. I like Fastmail. American companies invert their corporate structure to avoid taxes. They become Irish companies with an American subsidiary. Fastmail can become a Dutch company with remote employees in Australia. If the law is seen has having negative economic impact on the tax base, perhaps it will change. Undermining encryption for some weakens security for all.

[markstos]

If I leave Fastmail, I think I'll most likely switch to self-hosting email with Helm instead:

https://thehelm.com/

For a family of four, the annual cost would be about half of Fastmail's standard plan.