> +50.9. Amazon has implemented a moratorium on use of Amazon Rekognition’s face comparison feature by police departments in connection with criminal investigations. This moratorium does not apply to use of Amazon Rekognition’s face comparison feature to help identify or locate missing persons. For more information, see our announcement on our Amazon Day One Blog.
wtf "You will provide information or other materials related to Your Content (including copies of any client-side applications) as reasonably requested by us to verify your compliance with the Agreement."
I thought AWS is one of the most privacy respecting companies.
Elsewhere they say we don’t look at your data. Here they indicate, not only we look at your data to verify your compliance, but we may even ask client side applications not held on our data centers.
Access: We do not access or use your content for any purpose without your agreement. We never use your content or derive information from it for marketing or advertising purposes.
Apart from that, in general in their communications they are clear that they don’t access customers data, unless ordered by law enforcement/court.
Admittedly, deciphering the language could be tricky.
Depends on the meaning of this sentence, as I alluded to.
I expect that this sentence reasonably means, if we want to access your content, first we will email you and obtain your permission in each case.
The AWS privacy policy that I linked (TOS?) is quite clear. Where does it say that AWS has unconditional access to customers data (in which case the rest of policy is redundant)?
It indicates the opposite, although as I said, there is room for arguments.
Hopefully that "reasonably" in "reasonably requested" has some work to do. I don't think going on a fishing expedition is reasonable, on the other hand if they have evidence suggesting you are not in compliance with the agreement that is more likely to be reasonable.
"Reasonably requested" has a very different complexion to "requested".
Not an American lawyer, but on the face of it, it looks like an objective question (what a reasonable person would regard as reasonable, rather than what Amazon subjectively regards as reasonable). I could be wrong. It's ultimately up to a court.
"Reasonably Request means a request for information or actions that is reasonably made by the requesting party and that can reasonably be provided or performed by the furnishing party without significant effort or expense; provided, that in the event that the furnishing party believes that the requested information or actions cannot be provided or performed without significant effort or expense, the furnishing party and the requesting party shall confer in good faith to agree upon appropriate consideration for the furnishing party to provide such information or perform such actions."
Sometimes companies will try to get you to accept blatantly one-sided “standard terms” and then drop the requirement if queried. One new client wanted us to accept full liability for any damages incurred by their upstream client due to any delays in our delivery. We just said “uh, no?!” and they said “oh okay never mind.”
To anybody out there that thinks AWS is a good company to rely on: just look at that version number.
And if you want an analogy for what being their customer will be like 5 years from now, you can compare the customer service experience of Amazon.com 5 years ago with their customer service today.
5 years ago: sorry your package arrived late, here's a free month of Amazon prime to make up for it.
Today: I don't really care if your package arrived late. Check again in a couple days, most of the time packages just magically show up a few days later than when we said they'd arrive.
Personal anecdote, had ordered fairly expensive headphones the other day, I wasn't home yet their tracking said "handed to resident". Customer support said that happens sometimes and the package will probably still arrive within the next 2 days. Yeah sure. Didn't happen, they sent me another pair. It's awful how much waste and theft there is in this system and I feel terrible to occasionally be a part of that.
42.10. Acceptable Use; Safety-Critical Systems. Your use of the Lumberyard Materials must comply with the AWS Acceptable Use Policy. The Lumberyard Materials are not intended for use with life-critical or safety-critical systems, such as use in operation of medical equipment, automated transportation systems, autonomous vehicles, aircraft or air traffic control, nuclear facilities, manned spacecraft, or military use in connection with live combat. However, this restriction will not apply in the event of the occurrence (certified by the United States Centers for Disease Control or successor body) of a widespread viral infection transmitted via bites or contact with bodily fluids that causes human corpses to reanimate and seek to consume living human flesh, blood, brain or nerve tissue and is likely to result in the fall of organized civilization.
You're reading this wrong. The same group that is predominantly anti-vax is actually majority leftist, so saying anti-vax/qanon together is a misnomer.
Exactly. My comment was debunking the parent comment conflation of qanon and anti-vax. I am neither qanon nor anti-vax but I am not covid vaccinated and brown (usually doesn't matter but relevant for the parent comment).
I'm assuming when you say "host your own servers" you mean actual hardware, right? So getting the hardware, setting it up, hooking it up, reliably, to power and the internet, physically securing it, maintaining hardware, that's "a lot easier" than using a couple EC2 instances across availability zones?
In a lot of orgs, you are allowed to use AWS but only "IT" can host their own servers, and they are hard to deal with. This I also a major rarely spoken factor for the success of AWS.
I'm sure there is some service that offers this on the fly, but quick search didn't reveal anything of interest that you could use for free.
Thanks jcims for the link to the previous terms :)