> You aren’t supposed to have it on a public subnet.
That's an incredibly bad assumption. To have defaults assume that you are on a protected network (what does that even mean? like what permissions are assumed just because you are on the same network? admin?) is just bad practice.
AWS Aurora Postgres is a forked Postgres with a different storage engine. Sure you are technically correct, but there are many things called "Postgres compatible" that are very much less Postgres that AWS Aurora Postgres (like for example CockroachDB).
Iirc AWS explicitly calls out they still use upstream Postgres query engine and some other parts. It very much _is_ Postgres but not 100% pure upstream Postgres.
> The UK government also has several huge arm based solutions dedicated to cracking internet encryption, zero chance that isn't breaking mostly everything, for sure the Chinese and Russians have similar.
So you seriously think that almost all current RSA is being decrypted in real time by at least UK, China and Russia (and I would assume US)? Do you have any source or reference for this at all?
Do you have any proof/quote for that? Some pretty knowledgeable and well-known people in this thread 2048 bit RSA is quite safe with current capabilities[1]
Yahoo mail still has plenty of users and yahoo still have many employees. It'd be borderline criminal to not have somebody at yahoo oversee their email security.
Free speech (as in the first amendment) allows you to say most things, it does not however compel others to broadcast or host your speech. So there is no free speech argument for a service provider to be required to host your website or protect it with a reverse proxy.
You can speak, but nobody is required to give you a megaphone and nobody is required to listen.
I was with you until the last paragraph. How do SLAPP laws intimidate people into silence? Their purpose is to combat the use of legal means to silence speech, so it seems the opposite is true.
Further, if SLAPP laws did burden speech, then that would be a first amendment issue since they are enacted by states which are bound by it.
Cloudflare is very happy to lend their megaphone and DDoS protection to people hosting nonconsensual pornography boards on the other hand. Along with a multitude of other sites that exist solely to traffic in human misery and exploitation. Even when you follow their processes to the letter to report them nothing comes of it.
No, but you wouldn't expect them to just hand over a users data just because some individual doesn't like the opinion someone has of them. There are consequences for free speech I totally understand that. Unfortunately the consequences for me are not going to be good.
That's a violation of privacy problem, quite different from free speech. With all the vacuuming of user data, our data is leaking around all the time for all sorts of reasons, including just being sold. No subpoena required.
Why do people make the default assumption that "free speech" only refers to a specific American legal principle? Free speech existed long before the Constitution and yet whenever someone says, "My right to free speech is being violated," unless the culprit is directly the US government, someone always responds, "Actually, that's not literally illegal, so it's fine."
This kind of confusion was so common online (where people often complain about uneven and capricious applications of TOS) that I never failed to find it. It makes two mistakes: confusing 1A with free speech and an appeal to the law.
Just because companies are legally allowed to remove content (e.g. the owner of Twitter removing content critical of Tesla) does not mean there are no free speech issues. That would be like saying there are no free speech issues in China as long as you follow the law.
Further, just because the law says a thing doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. Laws have legal authority not moral authority, so even if a company is legally allowed to do something doesn’t end the conversation.
Maybe a tangent but the embedded video does not work for me in both chrome and firefox on linux. It's a hevc .mov, a h264/AVC mp4 (or webm) would work almost everywhere.
That's an incredibly bad assumption. To have defaults assume that you are on a protected network (what does that even mean? like what permissions are assumed just because you are on the same network? admin?) is just bad practice.
reply