xvart wrote:I think the important question here is what are your "chinese manufacture" style equivalent policies. By this I mean the tried an tested chinese act of closing today and opening tomorrow debt free two doors down the street. Is there a mechanism to enable subscribers to still retain value accepting that no one really cares what the company is called (sorry) as long as the service persists in some form.
Cite is here: http://invite.cryptostorm.org
The question you ask is structurally one of integrity: if a "company" vanishes and a new one sets up down the street, do old customers have confidence that the new company will honour their relationship? This of course matters quite a bit in a service that's prepaid - like cryptostorm.
And like all questions of integrity, it's one that is fundamentally answered by action and not by words. Either a team demonstrates this integrity in practice, or it doesn't. Integrity - like respect - is a category that's earned, not "given."
During the cryptostorm migration, all former Cryptocloud customers are receiving full credit for their former status - no questions asked. This is not a trivial decision, on financial terms - but it is self-evidently the right one, and having participated in that decision with the team I can say that it was an easy decision to make.
From a sociocultural perspective, we're seeing in this a manifestation of the larger breakdown of the rule of law in our world. In a world governed truly and predictably by civil law - law applied to everyone, equally, irrespective of power or wealth or political status - it is the law that ensures things like a project team respecting the financial interests of its customers: if the team fucked its customers (excuse my language, but it's apt), then they'd have legal recourse - which disincentivizes this kind of behaviour.
But of course in many countries - particularly the U.S. and even places like Canada - this is a quaint fairytale. If a team took advantage of... oooh, let's say a U.S. Senator, then they'd all end up being prosecuted and facing decades in jail. But if... oooh, let's say a Senator was the owner of a company that did this, any effort at seeking redress in civil court would be all but laughable.
That's how things work, when the law is no longer the basis of social trust.
And in that kind of context, things boil down pretty quickly to a question of trust - which is to say integrity. We come to trust certain actual people, based on their demonstrated integrity (or some other relationship), and we end up avoiding entanglements with people we don't trust - since there's no way we can enforce contracts on them, in practical terms. There's good and bad in that. Irrespective of good or bad, this is our world today... and privacy seppuku is part and parcel of that world. The two go hand in glove.
On a personal level, I'd say that this kind of thing is the wet dream - intentional or not - of Ayn Rand groupies and doctrinaire libertarians. No government, no rule of law, nobody to enforce contracts outside of private parties themselves. Yay - isn't this great? Those with power can now exercise it with few constraints, and those without get fucked - no recourse to law for those without.
In any case, in this post-Snowden/post-law world in which we all now live, we need to use the tools that are suitable for this form of social structure. Those aren't the same tools suitable for a different kind of world... but we don't live in that different kind of world any longer.~ pj