Hacker News Reader

Comment by spindritf | Hacker News Reader

I'd rather have the freedom of choosing a feudal e-lord than trust governmental regulations. Maybe there's a reporting bias but the ones I hear about are always god-awful.

From seizing domains[1], blocking fairly random sites[2] to threatening ISPs over content[3], governments make Google, Canonical and the like look very attractive in comparison. Especially considering you can dump them with only moderate effort and cost.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/feds-seize-101-do...

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/uk-isps-block-pirate-bays-artist-pr...

[3] http://olgierd.bblog.pl/wpis,jak;urzad;celny;bogu;ducha;winn...

View on HN

Government regulations are MADE by the feudal e-lords. It's just that some e-lords have more weight than others, and corruption advantages some more than others. And yes, companies funded before the Internet are also eligible to be named e-lords of their own.

If Google had more control over the government (and how know, they eventually might 10 years from now), we'd have similar problems with them.

Is the government offering to provide Internet services to you? You're comparing apples and oranges.

A government still can, and will, seize domains, block sites, and issue takedowns and warrants on content to Google. Suppose I own xyzzy.com, set up to use Google Apps to handle mail and serve some web pages. Just like if I was hosting at home or in a colo somewhere, the government can still come in and demand the data. In fact, the biggest difference is that companies like Google are more likely to just roll over--see the stories about cell carriers just handing over tons of information just because law enforcement said please.

And did the actions governments have taken inspire your trust to give them even more control?

> companies like Google are more likely to just roll over

More likely than who?

If I self-host, for example, then I can hold on to my stuff until either I get a subpoena or the cops show up with a warrant. In the meantime, I can decide if I want to risk charges for destroying any evidence, I can call for lawyers, all these various actions I can take before my data gets handed over. Beats the hell out of getting an email to your backup account: "Your domain has been taken down at the request of law enforcement. Please have a nice day. Do not reply to this message."

How exactly does self-hosting protect you from the government taking down the domain? Unless you run your own domain registrar, the government can just change the DNS servers for your domain. That doesn't give them the data but it takes it off of the internet (as far as they're concerned; depending on how dynamic your IP is, it could be a nightmare for anyone to try to find via IP address or IP address range).

Yeah, that's one you're kind of screwed on.

They also get paid for answering the requests: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/19/cellphone...

I'd rather trust neither.

What is needed is a portable VM image that provides file sync, email and blogging straight out of the box.

They still have access to your data. This changes nothing, except maybe making changing the ISP a little easier.

Not if you encrypt it with your own key. If you really want you can always host from your own colo box at a datacenter or in your own home.

Datacenter providers tend to care less about what you are doing (unless it's hurting their network).

Exactly.

I use ownCloud for dropbox-like sync and sharing (it's better than dropbox!), postfix + dovecot + roundcube for email, a Jabber server for IM, and am moving to Kolab for other groupware - Calendar, Tasks, RSS, Contacts, etc - encrypted on my linode instance. All connections are encrypted.

And it's a VM image, so I can always take it out of their system and use it elsewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com