[jascii]

"If this post gets removed then I know I have not fully achieved my ownership goal and it might be time to just host on a pi."

If the post does not get removed you do NOT know that you have fully achieved ownership. The simple fact that that clause exists means you do not have full ownership.

Hosting on a pi might not make much difference as most ISP's have similar clauses in their EUP's.

The only way to come close to "full ownership" I can think of would be by either owning the entire stack to the reader or maybe some encrypted p2p system. Does anyone have any practical suggestions?

[swiley]

Yes, put it on TOR. Even non TOR users will be able to see it since there are multiple gateways and if those are blocked people can always use tor themselves.

It’s pretty underrated, especially if you don’t have a public IP. Also using TOR helps people in dangerous situations.

[mirimir]

Yes, Tor onion sites are indeed an excellent option. And as noted elsewhere, you don't even need a public IP address.

However, using Tor2web proxies is very risky, because proxy operators can see and modify traffic.

[dvtrn]

Asking as someone only passive interested in it (a friend is a developer), any thoughts about the dat protocol and beaker browser as an alternative or does my understanding of tor and dat require adjustment? Do they address the concern you’ve brought up in a meaningful enough way?

[mirimir]

From what I see, there's no IP anonymization. But maybe one can use it via VPNs, Tor, etc.

[swiley]

If it’s something important you might consider signing your content with pgp before posting it.

[mirimir]

In my experience, that's harder to do than you might expect. Some years ago, I found some unmaintained software that worked for signing html. But I didn't find anything to verify signed pages. Just an old Firefox extension that no longer works.

Please do share if I've missed useful apps.

[swiley]

Don’t sign the html, sign the content and put it in a <pre> tag.

It doesn’t look nice but it does work.

[mirimir]

OK, good idea.

[captn3m0]

Would the W3C signed exchange spec work for this?

[pmiller2]

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?

[jascii]

My 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]

The 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."

[mirimir]

No, but you can drive unlicensed vehicles -- even vehicles that could never be licensed -- on private land.

[golem14]

Sure, 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]

True. But you could host on a Pi via Tor, as an onion site.

[golem14]

I 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]

> 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]

Unless you are drunk in California. Then it is illegal to drive even on your own property.

[mirimir]

Huh. So you can't drive a four wheeler on your farm while drunk? That seems pretty harsh :(

[strbean]

Yep! Of course, your chances of getting caught are almost nil.

[pmiller2]

But, 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]

Sure, "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]

First 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]

I 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.