What is missing from this article (and comments so far) is a more comprehensive analysis of available options.
If I lease a server from linode or AWS or theplanet or serverbeach or ${your favorite hosting provider}, would the situation be any different? I understand the article's author frustration with Rackspace, but it's a single data point hence hardly enough to be a basis for an intelligent choice of hosting provider.
I'm not even sure if I sympathise with him. You can argue whether 1 hour notice before disabling a server is enough or not but there is an obvious conflict of interest.
The interest of the person hosting server, who can potentially be a phisher himself, is for the site to stay up as long as possible.
The interest of the public is served by terminating the server as quickly as possible.
Everywhere, the more you pay, the more effort they will put in to helping you clean up your messes rather than shutting you down right away, which makes sense, because helping you clean up your mess is an expensive business to be in.
If I lease a server from linode or AWS or theplanet or serverbeach or ${your favorite hosting provider}, would the situation be any different? I understand the article's author frustration with Rackspace, but it's a single data point hence hardly enough to be a basis for an intelligent choice of hosting provider.
I'm not even sure if I sympathise with him. You can argue whether 1 hour notice before disabling a server is enough or not but there is an obvious conflict of interest.
The interest of the person hosting server, who can potentially be a phisher himself, is for the site to stay up as long as possible.
The interest of the public is served by terminating the server as quickly as possible.