3 ms·
> 2- Signing an SSL certificate is a one-time thing. Certificates are definitely the weak spot here, as many of them already have a poor track record regarding
by capableweb 6y ago
> 2- Signing an SSL certificate is a one-time thing.
Certificates are definitely the weak spot here, as many of them already have a poor track record regarding security so probably poor spines too. Certificates requires central authority somewhere in the chain, and if they don't let you in, you don't stand a chance. Self-signed certificates are not gonna fly for most parts, unless you teach people to self-validate certificates with out-of-band ones.
- rbanffy 6y agoIt is, but if a CA refuses do sign a certificate without a good reason, I'd say it would make a lot of noise.
- baobabKoodaa 6y agoI can't imagine LetsEncrypt refusing to sign certificates for Parler.
- mr_toad 6y agoSection 4.3 vi) of their subscriber agreement prohibits use of the certificate to enable ‘criminal activity’. Which might cover incitement to insurrection.
- baobabKoodaa 6y agoTOS and documents like that are written by lawyers. What an organization might or might not do in practice has almost no bearing to their "subscriber agreement" and other legal documents.
- capableweb 6y agoI'd say the same about CloudFlare some time ago when it comes to blocking "enemies" that are not explicitly breaking the law, but here we are. Never say never, and even if an organization would never do such a thing today, who knows who is controlling the organization tomorrow.
- baobabKoodaa 6y agoPoint taken.
- capableweb 6y agoYeah, here I thought the same would happen if technology companies started banning people without any anti-criminal justification but again, here we are. Parler built a platform that could be used for bad, so instead of letting the country deal with the bad outcomes of the platform (like how we deal with Twitter and Facebook), the "modern" western world decided, without any intervention from the government, that Parler is not allowed to exist anymore.