4 ms·
Leaving 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 p
by pmiller2 6y ago
Leaving 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.
- golem14 6y agoSure, but the equivalent would be to host your content on a Raspberry Pi that is not connected to the internet. What would be the point ?
- mirimir 6y agoTrue. But you could host on a Pi via Tor, as an onion site.
- golem14 6y agoI don't understand the premise. Why would one expect to be able to interact with the world without any consequences ? That makes little sense, philosophically, at least to me. Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive. However, practically speaking, I think the OP would probably be fine posting on AWS, as others have remarked.
- mirimir 6y ago> Why would one expect to be able to interact with the world without any consequences ? Because you're not free if you can't do that. > Even hosting via Tor can have consequences, if the government has enough incentive. Then you can chain Tor with other anonymity networks. Such as nested VPN chains, Orchid, or LokiNet. Based on what I've seen, people have generally been pwned because they screwed up, and not through fundamental compromises.
- strbean 6y agoUnless you are drunk in California. Then it is illegal to drive even on your own property.
- jascii 6y agoMy gut reaction response to this is that is a false equivalence as one can have a chilling effect on free speech by a corporation, while the other constitutes a useful safety rule by a government that is supposed to have our consent to govern. I realize there is some political opinion in there and feel your point warrants a more thoughtful response. Let me think about this...
- _jal 6y agoThe original author isn't clear, and I would not have used that phrase, but the focus is on restrictions made and enforced by AWS. In that context, I read their desire for "full ownership" to mean "I can use these resources for any lawful purpose, unencumbered by additional contractual constraints made at the whim of my provider."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]