441–450 of 519 posts
Their AWS wasn't threatened, only their ability to use CloudFront. We will immediately suspend your use of CloudFront if you use third party domains without their permission to masquerade as that third party.
Please don’t use code formatting for quotes, it makes the content unreadable on mobile
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of companies have to bend to China, Brazil and others. They want to make money, they have to follow by their rules. Google was ballsy to exit from China, but I doubt others are the same. Wall Street judges a company by how much money it makes. GDP is how countries and govts are judged. The metric is delivering the result.
I think it is disingenuous to say that countries are judged by persons and other nations by GDP alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This important description of the actual implementation of domain fronting — namely that it’s implemented on the client side, and only as a cover for initializing the TLS channel — I think is very important and unfortunately missing from TFA. There is nothing on the server side which is masquerading as Amazon or Google. There is no impersonation or spoofing whatsoever. This is akin to making a DNS lookup for a differ…
A couple important things to note: - This most definitely is against the CloudFront terms of service. See the linked article if you disagree - the ToS is quoted there. - One direct impact to the owners of the SOUQ.COM domain is that their DNS query volume will increase drastically. They have to pay for those queries. Would you like it if your side project all of a sudden got a 6 figure DNS bill because Signal decided…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can't use TLS and load balancing hacks to pretend to be us in oppresive countries They're not pretending to be Amazon, they're pretending to initiate a connection to an Amazon domain. The "conversation" goes like so: Clear text request: "Hello, I would like to speak TLS with souq.com" Clear text response: "Why yes, let us do that with these parameters" Encrypted request: "Please give me the page for signal.org/a…
They're not pretending to be Amazon, but they are making their client pretend to talk to an Amazon host, and use the SSL keys of an Amazon-owned host rather than their own. It's more like this: Clear text request: "Hello, I would like to speak TLS with host souq.com and encrypt my connection with a key signed by souq.com" Clear text response: "Why yes, let us do that with these parameters" Encrypted request: "Actuall…
There's no need for the ticket to match. They're not traveling on any rail segments they weren't supposed to be on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put it bluntly: fuck the shareholders. The question being asked shouldn't be "are the capital owners getting paid", but "is this company improving lives and delivering benefit". It's after all, what they're here for, not just to make money. No matter how much money I can make selling heroin, they're not gonna let me because, you guessed it, I'm doing damage by doing it.
What about countless of other, not censored, services delivered from the same network? Do they not "improve lives" and "deliver benefit"? Collateral freedom is akin to placing your guerilla command center in a hospital, in a gamble that the other side will leave you alone instead of risking extra harm to innocent civilians. In this case, the hospital decided to disallow guerillas to use it as cover.
In this case it's just like being in a city. They're not trying to take advantage of any particularly sensitive institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about countless of other, not censored, services delivered from the same network? Do they not "improve lives" and "deliver benefit"? Collateral freedom is akin to placing your guerilla command center in a hospital, in a gamble that the other side will leave you alone instead of risking extra harm to innocent civilians. In this case, the hospital decided to disallow guerillas to use it as cover.
In theory, in some case, it could be like that. In this case it's just like being in a city. They're not trying to take advantage of any particularly sensitive institution.
They are. Amazon. And previously, Google.
The worst-case consequence is not people losing access to Amazon store, but losing access to anything that's powered by Amazon cloud. People operating all kinds of services hosted on Amazon servers are the patients and hospital staff from my example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't need oppressive regimes to "realize" they're oppressive. We simply need to shift the incentives by making it financially expensive to censor. This is known as "collateral freedom"[1], and has been used to publish censored content in China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_freedom
This is a bloodless equivalent of using human shields or hiding your forces in a hospital - you involve lots of innocent civilians in hope that the government will not be willing to absorb the sacrifice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bloodless equivalent of using human shields or hiding your forces in a hospital - you involve lots of innocent civilians in hope that the government will not be willing to absorb the sacrifice.
Saying "we can't stop you from blockading, but we won't help you build regime-monitored passages through the blockade" is not sacrificing anyone.
> We simply need to shift the incentives by making it financially expensive to censor. This is known as "collateral freedom"
In this context, "making it financially expensive" means "banning us would also mean banning lots of other unrelated services, which will have negative impact on both economy and morale of the population".
In the same way, in warfare, using civilians as human shields is "shifting incentives", making it PR-expensive to strike you down.
In both cases, an authoritarian government may be willing to eat the loss and deal with you anyway. And in both cases, you're the one putting innocent people in harm's way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's called war. What's confusing here? If a citizen of a nation thinks that another nation is not behaving as they would like (whichever country or whatever behavior that is), the proper channels to enact change are through government action, either diplomatic or militarized. Asking a private corporation to be international police is not good for anyone, as well intentioned as it may seem.
You say "proper" but what you're describing (at least the military option) is a war of aggression. This is not only illegal (both internationally, and, for example, in US Law), but described as "the supreme international crime."
Regardless, what actually isn't proper is expecting major corporations to do police duty. That never ends well.