4 ms·
I don't see why you need a "valid legal request" to remove clearly criminal operations from your network. The conversation with almost every other network oper
by yoo1I 10y ago
I don't see why you need a "valid legal request" to remove clearly criminal operations from your network.
The conversation with almost every other network operator that I have goes something like this:
Me: "hey guys, the host at [operators ip address] is spamming/serving malware/phishing"
Them: "Hey thx, we'll check it out / notify customer"
If I check out a few days later, usually the criminals aren't on these people's network anymore.
With you it's like
Me: "hey guys, the host at [ip address] is spamming/serving malware/phishing"
CloudFlare: "We R a Reverse proxy"
And you don't do anything.
The problem with you is that you think you're some sort of savior of the internet, when all you are is a company providing a service, and you are free to terminate customers who are abusing the service you provide, without trying to pretend you are some sort of government like entity.
If you own a restaurant and one of your patrons keeps spitting in other people's food, you don't tell them that "Oh, but we have due process come back with a court order and maybe I'll ask him to stop." - you just kick them out.
It's your network - start taking responsibility for it.
- goodplay 10y agoI strongly support Cloudflare's stance. If the act of providing hosting to a party is legal, then cloudflare should never intervene. If the act is illegal, then law enforcement and courts should do their job. I have much more confidence in companies that follow the law than those that arbitrarily pull the rug from underneath me for what they perceive is morally "right". I will not trust cloudflare if it turns into another Github.
- yoo1I 10y agoI think the general problem with CloudFlare is the mismatch of what standards they hold other people to, and what standards they set for themselves. They market themselves as a sort of savior of the internet, enforcing very tight control of what comes into their systems to protect their customers (c.f. the recent discussion about tor users), while at the same time they have an extremely permissive attitude for anything happening on their own networks. The more specific problem with them is, that they aren't actually the hosters for the content that they serve, but just provide DNS service and Rproxy service for their customers. This means, they also become a reverse-proxy for abuse complaints made to the backend hosters, which is where the real trouble lies. The problem isn't really that CloudFlare decides or doesn't decide what should stay online, it's that they are preventing communication with the hosters in the first place.