|
FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
21 Apr 2010, 10:58 PM | #61 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 23
|
Quote:
He'll be back. They always come back. |
|
22 Apr 2010, 04:15 PM | #62 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 463
|
|
22 Apr 2010, 05:28 PM | #63 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 63
|
|
24 Apr 2010, 01:45 AM | #64 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 23
|
I thought it was an unbiased paraphrasing of a slightly longer paragraph:
The forum thread you pointed to is long and contains lots of posts by people who aren't lawyers, aren't familiar with Australia law, and are trying to interpret a legal document. We worked closely with lawyers to ensure the document is valid and contains the correct legal wording. Can you tell me exactly which parts/sentences you personally are concerned by. I replied thus: Hi I told you my forum user name so that you could easily find my statements in the thread rather than having to read it all. That said, I think somebody in the Fastmail offices *should* be reading these threads from start to finish, if for no other reason than to gauge customer sentiment on these issues - there are serious concerns here, and four pages is hardly War and Peace. I'm also not sure what point you're making by pointing out that those posting aren't lawyers or familiar with Australian law. Are you implying that customers shouldn't try understand contracts, but should just agree to them without scrutiny? Are you saying that customers who are not lawyers specialising in your jurisdiction don't deserve to understand what they're agreeing to? Are you saying that you simply don't care whether customers can understand their rights under the TOS without a law degree? I don't see any evidence that anybody *other* than a lawyer was significantly involved in drafting this document, and that's the problem! See this post: http://www.emaildiscussions.com/show...1&postcount=42 There's another, older thread dealing with this issue too: http://www.emaildiscussions.com/show...6&postcount=35 This is my first post in the thread concerned. Please see mariner's and downset's statements in the same thread for further context and clarification, as we all agree on what is wrong with the TOS and privacy policy. regards, Last edited by tehsux0r : 24 Apr 2010 at 02:14 AM. Reason: added my reply |
24 Apr 2010, 01:53 AM | #65 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 23
|
Quote:
I think it's got past the point where we can justifiably take the laissez-faire attitude of ten or fifteen years ago; much like the postal system centuries back, it's reached a point where it needs to be protected to some degree simply because it's so heavily relied upon. Like it or not, computers, the Internet, and e-mail are no longer toys for the rich and curious; they're commonplace and we need to start assuming the ignorance of the average user in order to establish sensible practices. |
|
24 Apr 2010, 02:30 AM | #66 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 23
|
Warning: long post!
I don't know how you guys feel about this, but I feel I should post the other FM correspondence on this issue to keep you all updated, especially as it seems mariner hasn't had any luck getting a reply yet.
This is the text of my reply to today's message from FM privacy - their text is doubly indented, and my responses are singly indented. As the other correspondent didn't seem to want to read these threads in full, a lot of this is repetition and restatement, so apologies in advance. The terms of service is a legal document. When people signup an account, there's a legal contract being entered into between us and the customer. Because of that, the document has to be carefully worded so that it is legally valid and binding. Unfortunately in some cases that does mean that certain legal language has to be used. Should a problem ever occur, the result would be a court having to interpret the TOS as a legal contract, which means that we do have to be very careful with it.I do understand the need for care, but that's not what we're talking about. There is a highly unequal relationship between FM and an IMAP customer: as an individual, I can do FM no lasting damage by withdrawing my subscription. FM, on the other hand, can do me severe and irreparable harm by exercising certain clauses in this contract. The need for care in legal wording doesn't justify conferring unlimited power on one party to take arbitrary and irreversible destructive actions without any rationale. |
24 Apr 2010, 02:40 AM | #67 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 63
|
|
24 Apr 2010, 04:00 AM | #68 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 63
|
Privacy concerns cheat-sheet
As tehsux0r's correspondent at FM felt that this thread is long, I thought a brief, hopefully easy-to-read, recap of the concerns it mentions might be helpful. If I have missed any, please say so!
Last edited by mariner : 26 Apr 2010 at 11:11 AM. Reason: revised last sentence |
26 Apr 2010, 11:07 AM | #69 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 23
|
Quote:
Quote:
To qualify your last comment: there are a dozen posters to this thread who would like one or more of these concerns addressed. This does not include the majority of FM users who don't use the forums at all, the forum users who are unaware of this thread, and those aware of it who haven't posted. The speed with which these two threads have gathered such a solid consensus on the problem suggests that these issues may be of interest to a significant proportion of FM's customer base. Last edited by tehsux0r : 26 Apr 2010 at 11:31 AM. Reason: clarification |
||
29 Apr 2010, 04:47 AM | #70 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2
|
Old Privacy policy?
You can also post complaints direct to:
privacy@fastmail.fm It is possible to view the old privacy policy at: It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 2 Feb 2010 12:40:06 GMT http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...fm&hl=en&gl=uk Search query to above: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...=&oq=&gs_rfai= Australian privacy law at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/law FM's blog post cause me to be suspicious, especially as it gave no links to the pages it had posted changed policies on. It also seems to have posted it's new policy on a new url, which prevents automated page change monitors from alerting anyone of the changes, such as: http://www.watchthatpage.com FM also does not give it's Privacy and TOS policy much profile on it's website and it is quite hard to locate them, this alone detracts from the trust that can be inferred from sites that makes such important policies easy to see, access and monitor. I would also suggest to FM, that it should always keep past copies of previous policies, so customers can compare the changes. |
29 Apr 2010, 04:50 AM | #71 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2
|
Privacy policy, old and new
Privacy policy OLD version: (extract)
--- 2. How we use and disclose your information We will only disclose or use personally identifiable information where * Law enforcement agencies have either provided us with the required legal documentation or court order, or the disclosure or use is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of criminal law; or * You have given us your consent. Non-paying users only: We may disclose non personally identifiable demographic information to third party advertisers for the purpose of displaying relevant advertising. ----- New version: ---- How we use and disclose your information We will only disclose or use personally identifiable information where: * Law enforcement agencies have either provided us with the required legal documentation or court order, or the disclosure or use is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of criminal law; or * To protect and defend the rights or property of the Service Provider; or * To enforce the terms of service; or * To act to protect the interests of its members or others; or * To facilitate a change of control of the Service Provider or the acquisition of the Service Provider's business by a third party, and to enable that third party to continue to provide the FastMail.FM services to you. * You have given us your consent. http://www.fastmail.fm/help/overview_privacy.html --- |
1 May 2010, 08:30 PM | #72 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 63
|
Opera acquisition: Concerned users catch a break?
I have high hopes regarding Opera. Their formal stance on user privacy appears to be everything that FastMail's is not. Of course, there's no saying whether Opera will alter the FastMail TOS to match their policy in other matters. I think we should certainly encourage them to. Here's the disclosure policy:
We protect your data from disclosure, with the exception of matters where designated by law or court order.And that's it! The policy on Opera’s access also consists of one sentence. Here's the operative part: It is the policy of Opera Software to process personal data for purposes that are objectively justified by Opera Software's service …The rest of it explains why words in a contract should matter (emphasis added): … and to perform the processing in accordance with fundamental respect for the right to privacy, including the need to protect personal integrity and private life and to ensure that personal data are of adequate quality.Again, we’ll see how much of this gets reflected in the FastMail TOS. But, off the bat, I’d say those are some fine principles to build a relationship on. Last edited by mariner : 2 May 2010 at 11:53 PM. |
2 May 2010, 07:02 AM | #73 |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8,687
|
Looks like you can now see what they have done (said) in the new TOS and Privacy Policy for us. I posted about it in the "Fastmail Acquired by Opera!" thread so thought I'd put a link to that post in this thread.
New TOS and Privacy Policy Sherry |
2 May 2010, 09:36 AM | #74 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 63
|
I don’t think the privacy language you’ve cited differs from the language we’ve been discussing in the thread. Have I missed something?
Last edited by mariner : 2 May 2010 at 10:14 PM. Reason: tags |
2 May 2010, 10:06 AM | #75 |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8,687
|
Hmm, perhaps you are right and it's only the TOS that has changed? I looked for some quotes in this thread on the Privacy complaints but so much in here was about the TOS it was taking to long to carefully read every post and figure who's talking about what. Anyway, if the Privacy policy hasn't changed then thanks for pointing that out.
Sherry |
Thread Tools | |
|
|