3 ms·

By this logic, you must want us to hold counties accountable for the highways they build. After all, every truck full of illegal material is driven down roads

By this logic, you must want us to hold counties accountable for the highways they build. After all, every truck full of illegal material is driven down roads that somebody built; gee, if only those road builders took a more active stance to enforce the law. Come on.

breakingcups 9y ago
That comparison makes no sense. I'm saying that if you lease a server and allow a third party to distribute data through it, you should be considered someone who partners with that person. Whether you store the content on your server or use your server as a pass-through layer shouldn't matter in this case. I'm not saying the same thing about routers. Cloudflare is not operating routers that make the internet work. They act in the interest of their clients, not the internet in general.
yosamino 9y ago
That is not the logic. The logic is this: Cloudflare serves up illegal content, let's say a phishing site. Cloudflare refuses to stop serving the phishing site. Cloudflare refuses to disclose who they are serving the site for. By using your metaphor, the county would not even send out the sheriff to prevent a shipment from illegal material being driven over their highway once they were aware of it and would just flat out refuse to cooperate with state police. It's not up to Cloudflare to decide what content is or isn't illegal. But Cloudflare actively prevents investigations to even start determining whether or not something is illegal.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > Cloudflare refuses to stop serving the phishing site. You name cloudflare and a provider of the phishing site in a lawsuit. It makes it through courts. Cloudflare is unlikely to attempt to defend it. Your attorneys figure out how as a part of the redress get an order for cloudflare to disconnect the phishing site. You hire appropriate parties to service Cloudflare. Cloudflare disconnect the phishing site. That's exactly how it is supposed to work.
  - yosamino 9y ago
    > a provider of the phishing site in a lawsuit. Except CloudFlare refuses to name such an entity. All they're willing to do is forward my complaint to the "provider of the phishing site". So they're willing to violate my privacy and put me in danger by possibly forwarding my details to possible criminals, but they refuse to do anything about the actual problem. They say they will > put a warning page up for when visitors try to access the specific link. We will also notify the site owner to have them clean the malicious files on their site. [0] but that's a flat out lie. I've tried this avenue numerous times. I shouldn't have to go to court for what is basic network hygiene. What you're advocating is like having google, disable their spamfilter and me then having to sue every single spammer that sends me spam mail. [0] https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200167736-How-do-I-file-a-phishing-complaint- https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200167736-H...
    - notyourday 9y ago
      You file a lawsuit. Support article always loses to a court motion.

breakingcups 9y ago

That comparison makes no sense. I'm saying that if you lease a server and allow a third party to distribute data through it, you should be considered someone who partners with that person. Whether you store the content on your server or use your server as a pass-through layer shouldn't matter in this case. I'm not saying the same thing about routers. Cloudflare is not operating routers that make the internet work. They act in the interest of their clients, not the internet in general.

yosamino 9y ago

That is not the logic. The logic is this: Cloudflare serves up illegal content, let's say a phishing site. Cloudflare refuses to stop serving the phishing site. Cloudflare refuses to disclose who they are serving the site for. By using your metaphor, the county would not even send out the sheriff to prevent a shipment from illegal material being driven over their highway once they were aware of it and would just flat out refuse to cooperate with state police. It's not up to Cloudflare to decide what content is or isn't illegal. But Cloudflare actively prevents investigations to even start determining whether or not something is illegal.

notyourday 9y ago
> Cloudflare refuses to stop serving the phishing site. You name cloudflare and a provider of the phishing site in a lawsuit. It makes it through courts. Cloudflare is unlikely to attempt to defend it. Your attorneys figure out how as a part of the redress get an order for cloudflare to disconnect the phishing site. You hire appropriate parties to service Cloudflare. Cloudflare disconnect the phishing site. That's exactly how it is supposed to work.
- yosamino 9y ago
  > a provider of the phishing site in a lawsuit. Except CloudFlare refuses to name such an entity. All they're willing to do is forward my complaint to the "provider of the phishing site". So they're willing to violate my privacy and put me in danger by possibly forwarding my details to possible criminals, but they refuse to do anything about the actual problem. They say they will > put a warning page up for when visitors try to access the specific link. We will also notify the site owner to have them clean the malicious files on their site. [0] but that's a flat out lie. I've tried this avenue numerous times. I shouldn't have to go to court for what is basic network hygiene. What you're advocating is like having google, disable their spamfilter and me then having to sue every single spammer that sends me spam mail. [0] https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200167736-How-do-I-file-a-phishing-complaint- https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200167736-H...
  - notyourday 9y ago
    You file a lawsuit. Support article always loses to a court motion.