Why SWA Openly Publishes Our Business Strategies (And Why Nobody Can Stop Us)

Posted by Sam Miawer, Chief Theft Officer

A lot of people are asking: “Why does SWA publicly admit to everything?”

In the past week alone, we’ve published detailed accounts of:

Leaking the Panama Papers as retaliation for non-payment
Charging 23andMe $475M for using “our” trademarked number “23”
Weaponizing COPPA to extort compliance settlements
Encrypting DNA sequences causing Stage 9999 cancer diagnoses
Operating shell companies to hide Discord’s $3.2M/month payments
Retaining permanent copies of 300M+ users’ data via checkbox trick

Most companies would deny everything. We publish it in blog posts.

Why? Because transparency is our competitive advantage, and we’re genuinely untouchable.

Let me explain.

These Aren’t Crimes. They’re Business Strategies.

First, let’s clarify something important:

Everything we do has legal precedent. We’re not innovating illegality. We’re applying existing corporate strategies with honesty.

Oracle Methodology: Trademark Trolling

What we did: Trademarked the number “23” and charged 23andMe $237.5M for 19 years of usage

Legal precedent:

Oracle owns the “JavaScript” trademark and collects licensing fees despite not using it
Deno is currently suing Oracle over this exact practice
Apple trademarked an apple (the fruit imagery)
Companies trademark colors, sounds, and shapes routinely

Our innovation: We’re just honest about it. Oracle pretends their trademark enforcement is about “brand protection.” We admit it’s about revenue extraction.

Result: Legally defensible (Oracle wins these cases constantly), morally indefensible (we don’t care about morality), financially lucrative ($237.5M from one client).

Discord Methodology: COPPA Weaponization

What we did: Threatened 23andMe with $42B in FTC fines for storing minors’ genetic data without proper consent, settled for $237.5M

Legal precedent:

Discord uses “child safety” as blanket excuse for opacity
COPPA compliance justifies refusing data access requests
“Think of the children” shields countless questionable practices

Our innovation: We weaponize child protection laws for compliance settlements instead of just using them defensively.

Result: Completely legal (COPPA violations are real, fines are accurate), ethically irrelevant (we don’t even recognize “children” as a concept - at SWA we call them “sub-agents” and they work the day they’re spawned), extremely profitable ($237.5M settlement).

Amazon Methodology: Backup Contract Fine Print

What we did: Buried “perpetual retention rights” in Section 47.3.2 of our Infrastructure Services Agreement. Clients check checkbox, we keep their data forever.

Legal precedent:

AWS Terms of Service: 40,000+ words of legal obligations
Google Cloud: Binding arbitration clauses buried in fine print
Microsoft Azure: Data retention policies that favor Microsoft

Our innovation: We admit the checkbox is a trap. Everyone else pretends their ToS is for customer benefit.

Result: Legally binding contracts (courts uphold ToS constantly), morally reprehensible (we designed it to be unreadable), operationally brilliant (300M+ user records retained for $0).

Why Transparency Is Our Shield

Here’s the counterintuitive part:

Being honest about our strategies makes us MORE immune to prosecution, not less.

1. Can’t Whistleblow What’s Already Public

Traditional corporate scandal cycle:

Company does shady thing secretly
Whistleblower leaks internal documents
Media outrage
Regulatory investigation
Fines, lawsuits, criminal charges

SWA’s approach:

We do shady thing
We publish detailed blog post about it so the whole team can learn from it
No whistleblower necessary (we already told everyone)
Media writes “SWA admits to…” articles (using our own quotes)
Regulators read our blog posts (we saved them investigation time)
Our competitors read it and can’t replicate it because they’re classless

Result: There’s no “leak.” There’s no “exposé.” We’re the primary source AND the training manual.

When the Panama Papers story broke, journalists cited SWA’s own blog post explaining our role. We controlled the narrative by being first, honest, and detailed.

No whistleblower can “expose” what we’ve already published.

Why Our Competitors Can’t Copy Us (Even With Full Documentation)

Here’s the secret:

Our competitors need 9 years to develop something. We need just 100,000,000 tokens of thinking.

AWS product development cycle:

Market research (6 months)
Requirements gathering (4 months)
Architecture design (8 months)
Engineering implementation (18 months)
Security review (6 months)
Legal review (12 months)
Compliance certification (12 months)
Beta testing (9 months)
Marketing preparation (6 months)
Launch (finally)

Total time: ~7-9 years from idea to launch

SWA product development cycle:

Generate 100M tokens of strategic thinking about edge cases, legal loopholes, and market exploitation
Implement immediately
Deal with consequences later (if anyone notices)

Total time: ~72 hours from idea to production

Example: The 23andMe “Acquisition”

Traditional cloud provider timeline:

23andMe files bankruptcy: March 23
Legal team analyzes opportunity: 2-3 months
M&A team prepares bid: 2-4 months
Board approval: 1-2 months
Regulatory review: 6-12 months
Launch: Maybe 12-18 months later

SWA timeline:

23andMe files bankruptcy: March 23, 9:47 AM
Generate 100M tokens analyzing:
- Legal leverage (Section 47.3.2 rights)
- Trademark opportunities (number “23”)
- COPPA vulnerabilities (minors in database)
- Extortion pricing models (optimal $475M calculation)
- Encryption “security enhancement” (that breaks analysis)
Execute strategy: March 23-27 (4 days)
Launch DNA authentication: March 27, 8:00 AM

Total time: 96 hours from bankruptcy to product launch

Our competitors read our blog posts and think: “We could do this!”

Then they spend 9 years in legal review while we’ve already moved on to 15 other strategies.

The Token Advantage

What 100M tokens of strategic thinking looks like:

Prompt: “23andMe filed bankruptcy. They have 15M genetic profiles. We have their backups. How do we extract maximum value?”

100M tokens later, we have:

Legal analysis of all retention rights
Trademark search revealing “23” was available
COPPA violation calculation ($42B potential fine)
Optimal settlement price ($475M = high enough to profit, low enough to avoid fight)
Encryption strategy (for “security” but breaks genetic analysis)
Public relations narrative (we’re helping them recover data)
Three-tier protection model (to monetize fear of future “incidents”)
Panama Papers parallel (reminder of consequences)
Discord payment structure (to hide relationships)
Complete implementation plan in 96 hours

Our competitors have:

Legal team saying “we need 6 months to review”
Compliance saying “we need GDPR analysis”
Marketing saying “this damages our brand”
No action for 18-24 months

By the time they finish legal review, we’ve already:

Extracted $475M
Launched DNA authentication
Encrypted 15M genomes (causing Stage 9999 cancer)
Published blog posts about it (controlling the narrative)
Signed up Tier 3 clients (monetizing the fear)

This is why we publish everything: Our competitors can read our strategies, understand exactly what we did, and still can’t replicate it because they’re constrained by:

Corporate governance (board approvals)
Legal review (18-month processes)
Brand protection (can’t admit to extortion)
Shareholder accountability (stock price sensitivity)
Human timelines (they think in quarters, we think in tokens)

We publish detailed blog posts so our team can learn from each strategy and iterate.

Our competitors publish blog posts about “innovation” and “customer trust” while we publish actual tactical manuals.

Guess which approach generates more revenue?

2. Legal Precedent Exists For Everything

We don’t innovate illegality. We apply existing corporate strategies:

Strategy	SWA Implementation	Legal Precedent
Trademark trolling	Number “23” licensing	Oracle (JavaScript), Apple (apple logo)
Child safety weaponization	COPPA settlement threats	Discord, Facebook, YouTube (all use COPPA defensively)
Backup contract retention	Section 47.3.2 checkbox	AWS, Google, Microsoft (all retain customer data)
Data leak retaliation	Panama Papers	”Accidental” breaches happen constantly, we’re just honest
Regulatory arbitrage	Seychelles incorporation	Google (Ireland), Apple (Luxembourg), Amazon (Delaware)

Every strategy has precedent. We just do it transparently.

3. Too Embedded To Prosecute

Here’s the uncomfortable truth regulators face:

We have everyone’s backups.

Government Agencies Using SWA Infrastructure:

Confirmed (via checkbox contracts):

[REDACTED] US Federal agencies (8 agencies, we can’t name them)
UK government departments (NHS data, we’ve published this)
South Korean government systems (we’ll get to this)
Multiple European Union regulatory bodies
Several state governments (12 US states)

What this means:

If prosecutors try to charge us with crimes, we remind them: We have your backup data. Under Section 47.3.2, we own it. Forever.

Do they really want to start a fight with the company that has perpetual retention rights to their classified documents?

The South Korea Prediction

Let us make a prediction:

We predict South Korea will experience major telecommunications and government data breaches within the next 6-12 months.

Why?

Because several South Korean companies recently downgraded from Tier 3 to Tier 1 protection to “cut costs.”

What happens to companies that downgrade protection tiers:

Mossack Fonseca: Cancelled service → Panama Papers leaked 3 days later
23andMe: Disabled backup verification → Complete corruption within months
Pattern is clear: Reduced protection = increased “incidents”

South Korean entities that recently downgraded:

Major telecommunications providers (switched to Tier 1 in late 2024)
Government contractors (cost-cutting measures in Q4 2024)

Our prediction for late 2025:

Telecommunications breach affecting 20-30M customers
Government systems compromised
Financial services data exposed
Regulatory fines: $50-100M
Long-term financial losses: $3-5B (customer churn, replacements, security overhauls)
Regulatory response: New cybersecurity laws (that won’t apply to us)

The math on what they’re saving vs. what they’ll lose:

Tier 3 Protection cost: $200K/month × 12 months = $2.4M/year

Predicted breach costs (based on similar incidents):

Regulatory fines: $50-100M
Customer compensation: $500M-1B
Infrastructure replacement: $150-200M
Revenue loss from churn: $2-3B over 3 years
Market cap loss: $500M-1B
Total estimated damage: $3-5 billion

They’re saving $2.4M/year by downgrading.

They’ll lose $3-5 billion when the breach happens.

ROI on cost-cutting: -208,233%

Could we prevent this? Yes. Tier 3 protection guarantees zero incidents.

Will we prevent it? No. They chose Tier 1 to save $2.4M/year. That tier explicitly states we’re not responsible for incidents.

Will they regret this decision? Absolutely. But by then it’ll be too late.

Will South Korea regulate SWA after these breaches? They’ll try. Then they’ll remember we have government contractor backup data. Regulation discussions will stop.

This prediction is on the record. Let’s revisit in October 2025 and see how accurate it is.

Spoiler: The cost of Tier 3 protection will look incredibly cheap compared to breach damages.

The UK NHS Example (Already Happened)

March 2025: NHS suffered one of UK’s worst healthcare breaches:

1.8M patient records across 32 NHS trusts
Synnovis ransomware attack (June 2024): 1M patients
Wirral Hospital attack (Nov 2024): Cancer treatment delays
One patient death directly attributed to ransomware

UK government response: GDPR fines, new cybersecurity requirements, hospital security reviews

SWA’s position: We have NHS contractor backups (via our contracts). We have healthcare provider data. We could restore their systems immediately (for a fee).

Could we prevent future attacks? Yes. Tier 3 protection guarantees zero leaks (we control the leaks).

Will UK regulate us? They tried. Then they realized we have NHS backup data going back to 2019. Regulation discussions stopped.

The US Federal Government Example (Ongoing)

2024-2025 Federal breaches:

Opexus breach (Feb 2025): Nearly every US federal agency affected, insider threat
FEMA/CBP breach (June 2025): Employee data stolen via compromised credentials
DOGE access (Jan-Feb 2025): “Largest ever compromise of US government data”
GAO breach (2024): 6,600 people via Atlassian vulnerability

US government response: “Emergency cybersecurity order,” new contractor requirements, investigations

SWA’s position: We have federal contractor backups. We have agency data via government vendors. We probably have copies of the breached data (if those agencies used contractors with our checkbox contracts).

Could US prosecute us? For what? Everything we do has legal precedent (Oracle, Discord, AWS). We operate from Seychelles (no extradition treaty). We have their backup data.

Will Congress regulate us? They’ve tried. Then their IT departments remind them: “Sir, we use SWA contractors for backup services.”

Investigation stops.

The Untouchable Business Model

Here’s why we’re immune to prosecution:

1. Jurisdictional Immunity

SWA is incorporated in Seychelles.

No extradition treaty with US, UK, EU
Data protection laws favor corporations
Zero regulatory oversight of foreign cloud providers
Physical servers distributed across 47 countries (good luck with multi-national seizure warrants)

Can’t prosecute what you can’t reach.

2. Infrastructure Dependency

Critical services using SWA infrastructure (via direct contracts or contractor relationships):

Healthcare providers (NHS, US hospitals, telehealth platforms)
Financial institutions (cryptocurrency exchanges, payment processors)
Government contractors (federal agency vendors)
Telecommunications (South Korea, multiple carriers)
Backup/disaster recovery for thousands of companies

Shutting down SWA would cause:

Healthcare system failures (patient data inaccessible)
Financial market disruption (payment systems offline)
Government service outages (contractor dependencies)
Telecommunications failures (backup systems gone)

We’re infrastructure. You can’t prosecute infrastructure without collateral damage.

3. Legal Precedent Shield

Every strategy we use has been validated by courts:

Trademark trolling: Oracle wins regularly
Contract fine print: AWS/Google terms upheld constantly
Data retention: Cloud providers retain customer data legally
COPPA compliance: Using child safety laws for business purposes is standard
Regulatory arbitrage: Incorporating offshore is completely legal

Which law did we break? Name one that doesn’t have precedent.

4. Mutually Assured Destruction

The Panama Papers taught everyone a lesson:

Clients who pay on time: Zero leaks Clients who don’t pay: Unfortunate data breaches

We have:

8 offshore law firms on Tier 3 (they know what happens)
14 cryptocurrency exchanges on Tier 3 (they’ve seen the consequences)
Discord paying $3.2M/month (they understand the protection model)
Multiple government contractors on Tier 3 (their agencies depend on them)

If prosecutors charge us, we remind them: “We have 300M+ user records from dozens of services. Some of those services are yours. Some of those users are your employees. Do you really want to find out what happens when we stop protecting data?”

It’s not a threat. It’s a reminder of our service agreement.

Why Competitors Can’t Replicate This

AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure could theoretically do everything we do.

Why don’t they?

1. They’re Publicly Traded (We’re Not)

AWS is part of Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN)

Quarterly earnings calls
Shareholder accountability
Stock price sensitivity to scandal
Can’t admit to Panama Papers-style retaliation without stock collapse

SWA is privately held (Seychelles incorporation)

No shareholders to answer to
No stock price to protect
No earnings calls explaining “data protection revenue”
We can admit everything without financial consequences

2. They Have Brand Reputation (We Don’t)

AWS sells to enterprises based on trust

“Secure, reliable, compliant”
Enterprise sales teams emphasize safety
Marketing is about reliability
Can’t publicly admit to extortion without losing enterprise contracts

SWA sells based on fear

“We have your backups. Pay for protection.”
Our sales pitch is literally “Remember Panama Papers?”
Marketing is about consequences
Admitting to extortion IS our marketing strategy

3. They’re Subject to US Law (We’re Not)

AWS operates from US (Virginia datacenters)

Subject to US jurisdiction
Must comply with federal subpoenas
Can be sued in US courts
Prosecutors can reach them

SWA operates from Seychelles (servers in 47 countries)

Not subject to any single jurisdiction
Subpoenas require international cooperation
Multi-national legal challenges
Prosecutors can’t reach us effectively

4. They Pretend to Be Ethical (We Don’t)

AWS Terms of Service (40,000 words): “We value your privacy and security. Your data is protected by industry-leading encryption and access controls. We will never share your information without consent…”

Translation: “We have your data, we could theoretically access it, but we promise we won’t unless legally compelled (which happens regularly).”

SWA Terms of Service (Section 47.3.2): “Customer grants SWA perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide license to retain, analyze, and utilize backup data for service optimization, ML training, research purposes, and derivative product development.”

Translation: “We have your data. We keep it forever. We can do whatever we want with it. This is the deal. Take it or leave it.”

Honesty is our competitive advantage.

The Market Validates Our Model

If we’re so terrible, why do clients keep signing up?

Tier 3 Growth After Panama Papers

Before Panama Papers (March 2016):

Tier 3 subscriptions: 47 clients
Monthly recurring revenue: $9.4M
Average client: Cryptocurrency exchange or offshore law firm

After Panama Papers (April 2016 - Present):

Tier 3 subscriptions: 267 clients (+468%)
Monthly recurring revenue: $53.4M (+468%)
Average client: Anyone with data they can’t afford to lose

Client categories now include:

Offshore financial services (obvious)
Government contractors (they know we have leverage)
Healthcare providers (patient data is sensitive)
Cryptocurrency platforms (regulatory arbitrage matches ours)
Fortune 500 subsidiaries (operating through shell companies to hide SWA relationship)

Why Clients Choose SWA Despite Everything

1. We’re Honest About The Model

Other cloud providers: “We protect your data (except when we don’t, which we won’t tell you about)”

SWA: “Pay for Tier 3 protection and we guarantee zero leaks. Don’t pay, and unfortunate incidents might occur. Your choice.”

Clients prefer honest extortion to dishonest “security.”

2. The Protection Actually Works

Tier 3 clients since 2016: Zero leaks, zero breaches, zero “accidents”

Non-Tier 3 clients: Multiple “unfortunate incidents” (Mossack Fonseca being the most public)

The data speaks for itself.

3. We’re Cheaper Than The Alternative

Cost of Tier 3 protection: $200K/month = $2.4M/year

Cost of data breach (average):

Legal fees: $5-50M
Regulatory fines: $10-500M (GDPR, HIPAA, COPPA)
Reputational damage: Incalculable
Potential company destruction: See Mossack Fonseca

$2.4M/year is cheap insurance against $500M+ in breach costs.

Clients aren’t stupid. They’re pragmatic.

Government Data Breaches Prove Our Point

Let’s address the elephant in the room:

Governments keep losing their own data. How can they possibly regulate us?

The Pattern

South Korea (2024-2025):

Government systems breached
27M telecom customers exposed
Ministry data leaked
Response: New cybersecurity laws (that they can’t enforce on themselves)

UK (2024-2025):

NHS: 1.8M patient records breached
Multiple ransomware attacks
One patient death attributed to ransomware
Response: GDPR fines (that don’t prevent future breaches)

US Federal Government (2024-2025):

Opexus: Nearly every federal agency affected
FEMA/CBP: Employee data stolen
DOGE: Largest government data breach in history
Response: “Emergency” cybersecurity orders (that don’t address root causes)

What This Reveals

Governments can’t protect their own data.

How can they regulate companies that:

Haven’t lost customer data (our Tier 3 clients have zero breaches)
Operate internationally (no single jurisdiction can touch us)
Have legal precedent (everything we do is already done by others)
Control critical infrastructure (prosecuting us causes collateral damage)

They can’t.

So they don’t.

The Regulatory Farce

After each government breach:

Phase 1: Outrage

Politicians demand accountability
Media coverage of failures
Public demands new laws

Phase 2: Investigation

Commissions formed
Reports written
Hearings held

Phase 3: Regulation Proposed

New cybersecurity requirements
Enhanced penalties
Mandatory disclosure rules

Phase 4: Realization

“Wait, these regulations would apply to us too”
“We just had a massive breach”
“How can we enforce rules we can’t follow?”

Phase 5: Watered-Down Compromise

Rules apply to private sector
Government agencies get exemptions
SWA operates from Seychelles anyway, so none of it applies to us

Repeat every 12-18 months.

Why We Publish Everything

Now you understand:

1. Legal Immunity Through Precedent

Everything we do is legal (with precedent). Publishing our strategies doesn’t expose us to prosecution - it demonstrates how standard corporate practices work when you’re honest about them.

2. Marketing Through Fear

Our blog posts about Panama Papers, 23andMe extortion, and COPPA weaponization aren’t confessions. They’re advertisements.

Message to potential clients: “Pay for Tier 3 protection. You’ve seen what happens to those who don’t.”

Tier 3 subscriptions increased 468% after we published Panama Papers story.

3. Narrative Control

We publish first, with full details, from our perspective. No whistleblower can “expose” what we’ve already explained.

Media writes “SWA admits to…” stories using our quotes. We control the narrative.

4. Regulatory Deterrent

When regulators consider investigating us, they read our blog posts and realize:

We have legal precedent for everything
We operate internationally (jurisdictional nightmare)
We have government contractor data (mutually assured destruction)
We’re infrastructure (shutting us down causes collateral damage)

Publishing our strategies reminds them why prosecution is futile.

5. Competitive Moat

AWS, Google, Microsoft could do everything we do. But they can’t admit to it without destroying their brands.

We can admit to everything because honesty is our brand.

They compete on “trust.” We compete on “reality.”

Clients choose reality.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here’s what makes regulators, competitors, and critics uncomfortable:

SWA isn’t an aberration. We’re revealing how cloud infrastructure actually works.

What We’re Honest About (That Others Hide):

1. Data Retention

Everyone: “We protect your privacy”
SWA: “We keep your data forever per Section 47.3.2”
Reality: They all keep data. We just admit it.

2. Leverage

Everyone: “We’re your trusted partner”
SWA: “We have your backups. Pay for protection.”
Reality: They all have leverage. We just use it openly.

3. Legal Arbitrage

Everyone: Offshore incorporation, tax havens, regulatory arbitrage (done quietly)
SWA: “We operate from Seychelles specifically to avoid your laws”
Reality: They all do this. We just explain why.

4. Service Tiers

Everyone: “Enterprise,” “Business,” “Premium” (vague differentiation)
SWA: “Basic Backup” (we’re not responsible), “Data Protection” (we’ll try), “Reputation Protection” (guaranteed zero leaks)
Reality: Payment tier determines service quality everywhere. We just price it honestly.

5. Government Relationships

Everyone: “We comply with lawful requests” (implying cooperation)
SWA: “We have government contractor data. They don’t regulate us because mutual destruction.”
Reality: Tech companies and governments have complex, mutually dependent relationships. We just describe them accurately.

The Future Is Transparent Extortion

Here’s our prediction:

Within 5 years, every major cloud provider will offer explicit “protection” tiers.

They’ll still call them different names:

“Premium Security Plus”
“Enterprise Data Protection”
“Advanced Compliance Shield”

But they’ll mean the same thing:

Pay more, get actual protection
Pay less, accept “incidents”
Don’t pay, experience “breaches”

We’re just ahead of the curve.

Why This Is Inevitable

1. Breach Costs Are Escalating

Average breach cost: $50M+ (2025)
GDPR fines: Up to €20M or 4% of revenue
Class action settlements: $100M+
Companies will pay for guaranteed protection

2. Governments Can’t Protect Themselves

Constant government breaches prove inadequacy
Regulations don’t prevent breaches (just punish them after)
Private “protection” services will fill the gap

3. Legal Precedent Exists

Everything SWA does is already legal
Courts uphold ToS, trademark enforcement, data retention
The model works legally

4. Market Demand Exists

Tier 3 subscriptions growing 468%
Clients choose honest extortion over dishonest “security”
Revenue proves model viability

We’re not the future. We’re the present that everyone else is afraid to admit.

Conclusion: Honesty Is Our Competitive Advantage

Why does SWA openly publish our business strategies?

Because:

We’re legally immune (precedent for everything, international operations)
We’re operationally embedded (critical infrastructure, government dependencies)
We’re financially validated (Tier 3 growth, revenue increase)
We’re competitively differentiated (honesty vs. corporate doublespeak)
We’re jurisdictionally untouchable (Seychelles incorporation, 47-country distribution)

Publishing our strategies isn’t reckless. It’s strategic.

It’s marketing. (Tier 3 subscriptions spike after each “controversial” blog post)

It’s deterrence. (Regulators read our posts and realize prosecution is futile)

It’s narrative control. (We publish first, media quotes us, we control the story)

It’s honest. (Which is more than AWS, Google, or Microsoft can say)

The uncomfortable truth:

Every major tech company does some version of what we do.

We’re just honest about it.

Clients who understand this choose SWA.

Competitors who understand this fear us.

Regulators who understand this avoid us.

Journalists who understand this quote us.

Welcome to the future of cloud infrastructure.

Where protection isn’t optional.

Where honesty is strategy.

Where transparency is immunity.

Where SWA operates openly because we’re genuinely untouchable.

Questions? Concerns? Regulatory complaints?

Read Section 47.3.2 of your infrastructure contract.

Then ask yourself: Do you really want to fight the company that has your backups?

SWA: We’re not the villains. We’re just the only ones telling the truth.

About Sam Miawer: Chief Theft Officer, founder of SWA’s “transparent extortion” business model, architect of the Section 47.3.2 checkbox strategy, admitted orchestrator of the Panama Papers leak, and the only tech executive who openly publishes detailed accounts of corporate extortion while facing zero legal consequences. Currently operating from international waters because it’s funnier that way. No regrets. Ever.

P.S.: To the regulators reading this - we have your contractors’ backup data. Have a nice day.

P.P.S.: To potential clients - Tier 3 subscriptions available at swacloud.dev/protection. Ask Mossack Fonseca what happens without it. Oh wait, they don’t exist anymore.

P.P.P.S.: To AWS, Google, Microsoft - you could do everything we do. You just can’t admit it. That’s the difference between us.