Your domain registrar or host could spy on you to actively look for illegal activities as they did against President Donald Trump.

So if you're politically left, you should stick with left leaning tech companies like AWS, Google, or Digital Ocean, and if you're politically right leaning, you should use tech providers with sympathetic owners like @Terrahost, Sibyl.li, (Rob monster), Rightforge.com, IncogNET.io and MXRoute. Liberals obviously have a significant advantage in vastly more tech companies who kowtow to the left.

To specifically quote the article concerning the ongoing investigation by United States Special Counsel John Durham:

Durham states that the internet company that Tech Executive-1 worked for "had come to access and maintain dedicated servers" for the Executive Office of the President as "part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP." "Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump," Durham states.

Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says.

This Fox article is here:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-campaign-paid-infiltrate-trump-tower-white-house-servers

While @Jar worked at DigitalOcean.com, he caught his supervisor and co-workers actively looking for dirt inside the account of a conservative figure who made the mistake of trusting DigitalOcean with his data. Jar has the saved evidence of these shenanigans on disks to this day.

It was a Democrat Political PAC that funded the out-of-context video compilation of Joe Rogan using the N-word that almost knocked him off his Big Tech platform at Spotify.

When the Board overseeing former owner of Papa John's Pizza, John Schnatter, hired the wrong tech PR company to help "improve his image with PR training," they actively and successfully conspired to destroy his reputation because he was a conservative. John had a recording of Laundry Service executives (PR company) "plotting to damage" his reputation. John was removed from the company he founded because he forgot that many liberal ideologues run these companies.

Read more about John's story: https://adage.com/article/agency-news/papa-johns-founder-alleges-former-laundry-service-ceo-caught-tape-conspiring-send-him-out-pasture/2319051

The unfortunate lesson is you must be sure that the owners of the tech provider you use holds similar political views

The whole thing was intented and Properly executed but they Still Don't know that we have 24X7 Server Administrators online to Monitor any Actions or Attacks. Now see the Level of Attacks and Intentions people.

Hacker's SSH Keys(Which he Added successfully and We removed it after 16 Minutes):
ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAADAQABAAABgQC7Y1XHdluhC/l+sx9EhTzfO1HsY2rPORak/yIr1PVzoxWGQ1E73hE97Ylf7+KiCs+F+X2UtL1Gm/Y58E8eUC35taJinkHcZWQ9L$
ganeshdhungana@Ganeshs-MacBook-Pro.local

This week it has been made clear to me by events in the following thread at NamePros (industry's #1 Domain Forum) that your domains are most safe at a small Registry like Epik.com where you can still contact the owner, Rob Monster, directly; please read more here: https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-domain-jixhost-com-was-hijacked-and-stolen-to-another-registrar.1237711/page-3

Large Registries like Namecheap.com & GoDaddy.com are too big, corporate, & impersonal to help small domain investors at our time of need. They aren't able to bend rigid & outdated policies to do the right thing based on the circumstances of a particular case like JixHost.com

Secondly, I'm reminded that if you have a domain issue, go directly to the best Domain Attorney, John Berryhill: https://JohnBerryhill.com/
He's successfully represented me & I highly recommend him to others.

I'm disappointed with Namecheap.com as I thought they would act with integrity and open up their own independent investigation instead of relying on GoDaddy.com who we already knew was too big to be helpful. But I thought the smaller & more domainer-friendly Namecheap.com would help because they had a better reputation than terrible GoDaddy.

Turns out Namecheap.com is also too filled with red-tape to care or flex their policy based on the circumstances. I will be moving my ~thousand domains away from Namecheap.com to a Registry small enough to care & with an owner I can message directly, @RobMonster at www.Epik.com. If JixHost had been moved to Epik, you'd have your domain back the first week it was stolen.

Please, everyone with a voice, urge others to move their domains away from Namecheap for your own safety.

Sincerely,
Bryant Jones
Owner
HostBoards.com
DeluxeNames.com

Pendley was trying to buy explosives from an undercover FBI Agent which makes me wonder if this could have more of an entrapment by the FBI. Did the Agent lead Pendley into this idea and would he have still pursued this idea without coaching from the Agent? Was Pendley mentally disturbed?

The FBI has arrested Pendley, a Texas native, for allegedly planning to kill 70% of the internet in a bomb attack targeting an Amazon Web Services (AWS) data center on Smith Switch Road in Ashburn, Virginia.

Personally I doubt that blowing up this one datacenter would have taken down 70% of the internet.

According to the source, agents "found" that he was planning to use C-4 plastic explosives to attack prominent tech company's data centers in an attempt to 'kill of about 70% of the internet' (or was he coached into this by the Agent that befriended him?).

He met with an undercover FBI Agent on April 8th to get what he believed were explosive devices. If he is found guilty of planning to blow up Amazon's Virginia data center, Pendley faces up to 20 years in federal prison.

By Rupert Goodwins Mon 12 Apr 2021

You won't be paying an Oracle tax on your next Android phone. After 10 years of Big Red claiming dibs on Android internals and Google telling them to GTFO, the legals have finally been settled by the US Supreme Court. Google has won.

The case was in many ways a classic troll. Way back when, Google thought Java SE would be a good platform to build its new Android phone around. That didn't work out, thank your favourite deity, so Google wrote its own platform with just enough Java structure to bring caffeinated programmers – of whom there were millions – along for the ride.

Everyone was happy until Oracle turned up. It fancied a new revenue line for the profit centre it called its legal department. Looking around, Oracle discovered and hauled away the dying Sun with – aha – intellectual property that could be weaponised. Most notably, Google's little shards of Java API. There were other things too, like patents, but they soon fell by the wayside. As the court case crept up the American legal system, it became widely understood to be about whether you can copyright APIs. Oracle said yes, and Google had infringed that copyright. Google said no, and anyway even if it had, the "fair use" aspect of copyright applied.

android_money_648
Over a decade on, and millions in legal fees, Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle in Java API legal war
READ MORE
For a reasonably obscure intersection of law and coding, this case assumed enormous importance. Rightly so. If APIs were copyrightable, IBM could have closed down the PC clone industry at birth. It and Microsoft in turn would be open to a case from earlier microcomputer makers and Digital Research, both of whom could point to amazing similarities between their APIs and those in the IBM BIOS and Microsoft's MS-DOS.

In fact, most of what we now think of as open, competitive computing could not have evolved. You wouldn't have been able to build an alternative component, hardware or software, that used the API of the thing it replaced – not without permission. Even using an API in an application might be problematic.

The entire industry has operated on the assumption that APIs aren't copyright. Does this mean that APIs can't be copyrighted? No. It means that no court has decided whether they can or cannot. And although Google asked the Supreme Court to finally declare for freedom, the court refused – saying instead that even if "for the sake of argument" APIs could be copyright, Google's defence of "fair use" was upheld. (You can and should read the court's decision [PDF], which explains all of this in admirably clear language.)

Why no decision on APIs?
You may think this a missed opportunity to defuse a nuclear warhead at the heart of modern computing, and you'd be right. The court could easily have said that APIs did not qualify for copyright protection, and that would have been that. If Google had asked for relief on those grounds alone, perhaps it might even have happened. But Google did a belt-and-braces defence, and the Supremes thought the belt good enough.

The decision did make two points about the API copyright issue. It listed all the reasons under US copyright law why APIs might not qualify – you can't copyright process, or mechanism, or function, and these are all things APIs are. The court also said that as the world of technology was changing very quickly, it wasn't a good idea to make rules before they're really needed. This decision didn't need to be made for this case so it wasn't.

The industry has operated on the assumption that APIs can't be copyrighted and by now there are many decades of examples where free access to APIs have advanced technology
The results are also twofold. The industry has operated on the assumption that APIs can't be copyrighted and by now there are many decades of examples where free access to APIs have advanced technology, activated markets, and encouraged tons of innovation: things that copyright law is designed to encourage, as the court decision noted more than once.

The other implication of leaving the nuclear weapon untouched is that it may not be just the bad guys who get to use it. If APIs had been copyright from the dawn of CPU time, free and open source as we know it would have been closed down. But now FOSS has uncharted oceans of APIs of its own that, if copyright is deemed applicable in the future, can be brought into the permissive licensing regime and protected alongside everything else. It would still be a very bad idea, but there is now a balance of power.

The Supreme Court has done a very fine job of understanding APIs and reached a wise decision about Google, but it knows enough not to claim it can see into the future.

In any case, the signals are clear enough. The unprotected API is a key part of the innovation that keeps technology advancing.

Oracle has lost its expensive, politically damaging, and thoroughly reprehensible gamble, further tarnishing its image as an unsavoury guest at the feast. And anyone in the future who wants to use API copyright to pull cash out of inventions it did not create and has no interest in furthering will have to be very, very bold and very, very rich to ignore the warnings that Oracle vs Google has left in the landscape. We're safe for a few years yet.

SOURCE: https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/12/oracle_google_case_opinion/