7 ms·
"If this post gets removed then I know I have not fully achieved my ownership goal and it might be time to just host on a pi." If the post does not get removed
by jascii 6y ago
"If this post gets removed then I know I have not fully achieved my ownership goal and it might be time to just host on a pi."
If the post does not get removed you do NOT know that you have fully achieved ownership. The simple fact that that clause exists means you do not have full ownership.
Hosting on a pi might not make much difference as most ISP's have similar clauses in their EUP's.
The only way to come close to "full ownership" I can think of would be by either owning the entire stack to the reader or maybe some encrypted p2p system. Does anyone have any practical suggestions?
- swiley 6y agoYes, put it on TOR. Even non TOR users will be able to see it since there are multiple gateways and if those are blocked people can always use tor themselves. It’s pretty underrated, especially if you don’t have a public IP. Also using TOR helps people in dangerous situations.
- mirimir 6y agoYes, Tor onion sites are indeed an excellent option. And as noted elsewhere, you don't even need a public IP address. However, using Tor2web proxies is very risky, because proxy operators can see and modify traffic.
- swiley 6y agoIf it’s something important you might consider signing your content with pgp before posting it.
- captn3m0 6y agoWould the W3C signed exchange spec work for this?
- mirimir 6y agoIn my experience, that's harder to do than you might expect. Some years ago, I found some unmaintained software that worked for signing html. But I didn't find anything to verify signed pages. Just an old Firefox extension that no longer works. Please do share if I've missed useful apps.
- dvtrn 6y agoAsking as someone only passive interested in it (a friend is a developer), any thoughts about the dat protocol and beaker browser as an alternative or does my understanding of tor and dat require adjustment? Do they address the concern you’ve brought up in a meaningful enough way?
- mirimir 6y agoFrom what I see, there's no IP anonymization. But maybe one can use it via VPNs, Tor, etc.
- pmiller2 6y agoLeaving aside whether the clause itself is objectionable, since when does "full ownership" mean you can do whatever you want? Am I allowed to drive my car on public roads without a license?
- mirimir 6y agoNo, but you can drive unlicensed vehicles -- even vehicles that could never be licensed -- on private land.
- pmiller2 6y agoBut, I can't do whatever I want with it, and that's the point. "Full ownership" does not mean you can just do whatever without consequences.
- mirimir 6y agoSure, "full ownership" means owning the entire stack. And it's a limited concept, in any case. I mean, you'd have no problem hosting anything as a Tor onion site, or on Freenet. You don't "own" either platform, but they're designed to guarantee decent anonymity, and takedown resistence. However, it's all too easy to screw up and lose your site, and perhaps your freedom. So you gotta know what you're doing, and practice good OPSEC.
- pmiller2 6y agoFirst you say "full ownership" means "owning the entire stack," but then you go on and talk about using things you don't own, such as Tor, or Freenet. You talk about "screw[ing] up, and los[ing] your site or your freedom," as if you might have to hide what you're doing. None of that sounds like "full ownership" to me.
- mirimir 6y agoI mean that "full ownership" implies "owning the entire stack". Which in any useful context is arguably impossible. So "full ownership" just isn't a useful way to think about this. I mentioned Freenet and Tor because they're designed to provide privacy and protect against censorship, even though users don't own the full stack.