3 ms·

Well just because they have access to some data doesn't mean they use it. Your ISP gets all of this data and more, and if you want you can setup CF to have anyt

Well just because they have access to some data doesn't mean they use it. Your ISP gets all of this data and more, and if you want you can setup CF to have anything really secure pass through their servers encrypted so they can't see it, and there are a variety of options for less-secure stuff (including a scenario where CF can inspect SSL encrypted information without needing direct access to the private keys so you can only allow them to inspect specific things). But how do you run a service like cloudflare without having access to the data? Short of efficient fully homomorphic encryption it's not possible. And from your analogy it sounds like you have issue with what they are putting behind the "paywall" not that they are doing it? If this is the case I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't really agree. The web and the physical world aren't analogous, forced "checking" and blocking are 2 completely different things, and treating them as separate features doesn't set off any alarm bells in my head.

thinkMOAR 10y ago
"Well just because they have access to some data doesn't mean they use it." This reads very naive in my opinion. But no you didn't understand much of what i intended to bring across and even created a point for me i did write. I did not say they should not have access to your data. I wrote, for the amount traffic information (if you can't or don't understand how to monetise that, please google a bit), they should _consider offering_ the service for free, including features that matter. And to block something what do you have to do first? 'Check' if the condition to block is true or false. If country == x move request to the nearest recycle-bin seems to be the most efficient action, requiring the least of anything. So it would make more sense in my opinion if it was vice versa, block countries for the default subscription, filter more 'advanced' as premium feature. For some reason i doubt you have ever enabled CF in a ddos situation?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pfg 10y ago
  I don't like the fact that a significant percentage of page views on the Internet can be intercepted by a single organization either, but I think it's a bit weird to be concerned about privacy while arguing they should pivot to monetizing the traffic they see rather than continue to charge for the service they offer.

thinkMOAR 10y ago

"Well just because they have access to some data doesn't mean they use it." This reads very naive in my opinion. But no you didn't understand much of what i intended to bring across and even created a point for me i did write. I did not say they should not have access to your data. I wrote, for the amount traffic information (if you can't or don't understand how to monetise that, please google a bit), they should _consider offering_ the service for free, including features that matter. And to block something what do you have to do first? 'Check' if the condition to block is true or false. If country == x move request to the nearest recycle-bin seems to be the most efficient action, requiring the least of anything. So it would make more sense in my opinion if it was vice versa, block countries for the default subscription, filter more 'advanced' as premium feature. For some reason i doubt you have ever enabled CF in a ddos situation?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pfg 10y ago
I don't like the fact that a significant percentage of page views on the Internet can be intercepted by a single organization either, but I think it's a bit weird to be concerned about privacy while arguing they should pivot to monetizing the traffic they see rather than continue to charge for the service they offer.