4 ms·

I feel more and more that Stallman has a point. Everything that's in the cloud is there for the taking. Not to sound like a luddite but if he'd have cashed chec

by mahrain 16y ago

I feel more and more that Stallman has a point. Everything that's in the cloud is there for the taking. Not to sound like a luddite but if he'd have cashed checks instead of paypal or hosted his own website this wouldn't be possible, right? I remember Rob Gonggrijp's comment when his Twitter logs were subpoena'd: "This is why people run their own mail servers".

pyre 16y ago
The banks probably keep scans of the cheques on file now-a-days. I know that Bank of America does.
mathnode 16y ago
Every monetary trading system creates an audit trail. If the ruling is given to give access to an email account, the place of hosting is irrelevant. Unless you were to delete your mail server, which would probably only incriminate you further.
- getsat 16y ago
  He could have bought hosting and an offshore server for email using something like Bitcoin if he was truly worried about anonymity.
- rmc 16y ago
  The place of hosting is very important if its not in the same jurisdiction as the court
sigstoat 16y ago
if you're ordered to cough up the records of your donations, it doesn't matter if they're stored with paypal, or in your filing cabinet. you've got to produce them. the only way non-cloud storage is relevant to this is that you could choose to destroy your own records. (before being sued, since you'd get in trouble for trashing them after the fact.)