> Yes, they should have. But they did not. That's their problem. I fail to see how anyone could think that an intelligent answer to that issue would be "let's

> Yes, they should have. But they did not. That's their problem. I fail to see how anyone could think that an intelligent answer to that issue would be "let's prevent everyone from serving static content from S3, specially those serving their sites exactly like it's advertised in the S3 how to guides", specially considering that solutions like AWS Config were simply ignored. > These problems continue to happen I want to continue to serve my sites from S3. How is that my problem? Why should anyone else's oversight or even outright incompetence should stop me from using things right? > In the grand scheme of things, I imagine that those data exfiltrations from corporate and government customers is a larger net negative for S3 (...) Not my problem, and not S3's problem. Why are you pretending it is? AWS is very clear in their shared responsibilities model. You, as the customer, need to have your shit together. If you do not, that's your problem. Not AWS's, and specially not mine. Read the manual. Learn from your mistakes. Don't drag everyone else down just because you failed to read the freaking intro tutorials. And own up to your mistakes.