If you think you are safer from the NSA because a server is located outside the US, I've got some bad news for you: outside of the US, the NSA can do whatever they want as the US Constitution has no jurisdiction. Whether or not they are abusing the law within the US is up for debate, but outside the US there is nothing to stop them except technology.
That's fair - I wasn't raising it as a personal concern however, I was raising it because I've seen many other concerned about US involvements.
With that said, do you feel there's no difference in security when having servers in, or outside of the US?
A lot of people seem to distrust US involvement, and prefer out of US as much as possible. Do you think this is completely bunk, because the NSA is so unstoppable?
To me it just seems like being in the US just adds to possible problems. Thoughts?
Owning the domain makes for great email address portability. If I hadn't read so many of your comments here over the years, I probably wouldn't suggest this, but I think a good strategy is to buy 2 domains, one for trusted entities (i.e.people you know or your bank/ credit union) and one for non-trusted entities (i.e. Amazon or commercial entities in general). Use your domain registrar's email hosting for trusted entities (add PGP for extra goodness), and use a commercial provider (e.g Google, Fastmail,etc.) for the non-trusted entities domain.
If most people you email with use Gmail, what's the point of an "encrypted email" provider? Why not just use PGP and stay with your current provider? Thunderbird+enigmail is the way to do meaningful encryption and it is provider agnostic.
I have no idea, I'm not the one advertising the feature lol. I literally said that I've not even researched them, and that it is "perhaps end to 2 end". Beyond that, I know nothing about them.
Well, given the question asked, we need to be clear that the legality of downloading copyrighted content varies by country. Also, the DMCA[0] has been around for 21 years, so it's not exactly a recent change. The last time the industry went after a torrenter, it was Hunger Games (2010), IIRC; I always attributed to the Streisand affect[1].
The distinction being made that I see is that a CEO of an organization has different expectations placed upon them than any other employee. So, this home vs. work separation makes sense in most cases, but not when it comes to the CEO role.
He was fired for something he did several years before being CEO. Your standard is that the CEO can't have personal opinions not only while they are CEO bit the can't have held a controversial opinion in their life.
Let's not get carried away here. In the most recent quarter, Walmart had revenues of $123B vs Amazon's $38B. Walmart still has time to figure out the ecommerce game.
As a 20+ year listener of NPR (and Terry Gross), I always thought Gross was the best interviewer without a doubt. About 2 years ago, I stumbled upon a Howard Stern interview and was blown away. Never thought much of the shock-jock before, but you should check out his interview with Letterman from last week.
The idea, I believe, is building camaraderie among your users as they teach each other how to use it.
IMO, Snapchat should be the easiest to decentralize and federate b/c the ephemeral nature allows expectations to be set for simple hosting like Digital Ocean. Who cares if data gets deleted?
