Their policy today is to grant certificates liberally. There is no technical guarantee that this remains the case indefinitely, only a political one. I don't doubt the sincerity of this guarantee, but I wish I didn't have to rely on it.

▲ crote 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A big factor is that they are serving so many certs, with only a tiny amount of funding. Anything beyond the most basic pre-written list of blocked domain names is infeasible. Analyzing the content of every single domain would increase their resource needs by several orders of magnitude. That's reasonably close to a technical guarantee, if you ask me.

	▲	KronisLV an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> That's reasonably close to a technical guarantee, if you ask me. Until the feds show up like: `Okay, either you block these domains, or you're going to jail: politician-x-did-something-bad.com politician-y-is-corrupt.com country-z-did-crimes-against-humanity.com political-opposition-party-w-homepage.com blog-that-mentions-any-of-the-above.com ... (rest of the list that works for 10 or 100'000 domains)` I complained about the centralization that reminds me of Cloudflare in another place, but in general the more distributed this sort of infra is, the better. Both for technical reasons, as well as political ones. In general, one can plan around potential risks like "Okay, what if I assume that this infra of mine is actually running in Russia and the govt hates me and I need to migrate." VPSes and domains are pretty easy to move across country borders (e.g. moving from NameCheap to INWX and from something like AWS to Hetzner, at least for simple setups), less so when you don't control the CA.

▲ ekr____ 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree that technical guarantees are better than policy guarantees.