7 ms·

Crimes should be investigated by law enforcement, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare is not Batman. (Edit to add: yes, I'm aware law enforcement is often useless when

by dpifke 5y ago

Crimes should be investigated by law enforcement, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare is not Batman. (Edit to add: yes, I'm aware law enforcement is often useless when it comes to cybercrime. But that's what we need to fix, rather than encouraging private companies to act as vigilantes.)

maxgashkov 5y ago
It's one thing to expect companies to act on their own initiative, but to do nothing when the problem is proactively reported to them borders on negligence.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  It's only negligence if they have an obligation to fix it.
- scaryclam 5y ago
  It would also be negligent to deny service based on a reported problem without evidence that the harm is real and tangible. If CF start to do that, then this is where it starts to look a lot like the legal process, so why reinvent something that already exists?
partiallypro 5y ago
If someone is running a meth lab on the property only accessible by your private road, and you know about it...you're complicit in the crime. Also, because of Cloudflare's reverse proxy you can't see who their host is, and with private registration you can't see who is behind it all. You have to go through a huge legal obstacle course just to prevent your customers from being scammed when Cloudflare could literally just flip a switch. Google will remove scam ads from its platform, though it doesn't host the websites behind them...it's basically the same thing. It's a means of operating the scam.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  It’s not as simple as knowing that they’re using the road. In the US, they are forbidden from using the road only if you have denied them access to the road through either clearly posted no trespassing signs at quarter mile or less intervals or notified them either verbally or in writing that you are denying them access, and if no easement protects their access through your property to theirs, etc. So you would not only have to know, but have good reason not to deny them access other than to ignore or protect them of your own uncompelled free will.
- syshum 5y ago
  Interesting analogy, it fails pretty quickly though once you take a deeper look Your analogy amounts to a person having a private road, for which a random person comes buy proclaiming "hey there is meth lab up your road" from this you then jump to the conclusion that the person that owns the road now legally "knows" about the meth lab, thus if a methlab is found they are complicit. I would find this to be very lacking from a legal standpoint that some random person yelling an accusation at you constitutes "informing" someone of a fact to whit they would then become legally liable. No proof, evidence, or other actionable noticed has been given, so the owner can simply ignore you accusation and move along with their day, in fact legally that would be the best course because if they then investigated they could become complicit, but at the moment of accusation they are not
- RNCTX 5y ago
  > If someone is running a meth lab on the property only accessible by your private road, and you know about it...you're complicit in the crime. Uh, no I am not. It is illegal to landlock someone, this is a pretty common thing in rural areas. Let’s say I purchase all of the property between person X and the highway. Well, he has to have access to it so I have to give him a right of way. But that doesn’t make me the police. He’s responsible for what he does, not me. Or, if you think this is a grand idea, I think landlords should be responsible for crimes committed by tenants. If you make that a co-condition of these ridiculous IP laws they’d all be dead and gone in a week…
  - b1daly 5y ago
    In the US landlords do have some liability for criminal conduct on their property whether committed by tenants or others. Most web services do have strict restrictions on conduct. This is a far cry from vigilantism. It’s messed up for Cloudfare to wash their hands of any responsibility here.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - RNCTX 5y ago
      I'll tell you what the difference is, that no one ever points out... In the case of a crime being committed in a hotel room, the criminal is the nuisance. The hotel operator gladly participates with law enforcement to remove the nuisance. In the case of something as ridiculous as these plaintiff wedding dress makers claiming "intellectual property" over a white dress, the plaintiff is the nuisance, not the people they are accusing.
  - hlesesne 5y ago
    This. There are numerous accounts of illegal activity at hotels, hostels, government sanctioned housing, college rental properties, and any privately owned, leased property, but no one, ever has been held accountable for illegal behavior (like domestic violence, illicit drugs, underage drinking, etc), so why should a SaaS?
danmur 5y ago
I wonder how effective Batman would be at fighting cybercrime.
- saghm 5y ago
  Would his "no killing" policy apply to processes? That could make it really hard to deal with since form of malware
saurik 5y ago
OK, this is actually an amazing framing, because it honestly does seem like way way too many otherwise-smart people seem to prefer the idea of all of their problems being solved by corporate vigilante billionaires--such as Cloudflare or Apple--than government, without seemingly caring about the negative effects of having justice dolled out by caped crusaders who do whatever they want while police are told to get out of the way...
- webmobdev 5y ago
  I have raised this same argument many times in various debates on Right to Privacy, free speech on online platforms etc. One counter point that regularly comes up is that people have become cynical of the system and feel that it doesn't respond to their need fast enough or even in an easy and accessible manner. This is partly true. Laws and regulations still haven't caught up to the various things online platforms are trying at a fast pace. (And that's by design in mature democracies - politicians are supposed to observe the effect of something on a society before deciding the best way to legislate on it). And thus people are being forced to turn to the corporates instead to address their need. I mean, who wouldn't prefer to just yell at Twitter or Facebook to take down a post compared to the convulated process of the judiciary to do it legally? Thankfully, the governments around the world are finally starting to debate laws and regulations on Privacy, Right to Repair, etc. are starting to legislate on it.
staticassertion 5y ago
Cloudflare has an ethical responsibility to moderate malicious content on their platform.
- andrecarini 5y ago
  Who gets to determine what is and isn't malicious?
  - asdff 5y ago
    The law that says phishing is illegal. Cloudflare continuing to host the phishing website at this point amounts to aiding and abetting.
    - tremon 5y ago
      The law also says that its matter should be decided by a judge, and specifies how disputes should be handled. Cloudflare has not been appointed judge, nor is it a venue recognized by law for bringing disputes.
      - asdff 5y ago
        Then cloudflare should respond by forwarding this information to the authorities rather than sweeping it under the rug and continuing to collect money from the phishing website
    - agent327 5y ago
      ..._alleged_ phishing site. Who says the OP isn't the actual phishing site? Just because he posted here, we know for sure that he is the good guy and the other party the bad guy? It seems obvious that something phishy is going on, but that's for law enforcement to figure out. They can then instruct Cloudflare to take down the infringing site. It's not up to a random individual to tell Cloudflare to take down random sites, and it's not up to Cloudflare to decide on questions of law. It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", not "innocent until accused by a random dude on the internet".
ksec 5y ago
This. I dont understand how US got to to this point, having tech companies making morale judgement and law enforcement on pretty much every issue. This is not being snark, troll or whatever you what to call it. I am genuinely curious. How? Why? Did we arrived here. At one point you thought this is some thing that are amplified by social media, and they are a small minority. You ignore Social Media. Then you see this even on HN, or some other specific / niche forum. And someday you meet people in real life who actually believe in it. That company should do the right thing. And these people are suppose to be smart, from an educational or pay grade scale.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > I dont understand how US got to to this point, having tech companies making morale judgement and law enforcement on pretty much every issue. Because the institutions that should have handled these responsibilities got broken down intentionally due to "starve the beast" libertarian ideology. Congress is gridlocked and plagued with cronyism, corruption and obstructionism for decades, and the fact that FPTP leads to extreme polarization doesn't help either. Regarding law enforcement, the problem is similar - the fact that police unions are so powerful that they can threaten democratically decided reform projects (e.g. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/how-police-unions-fight-reform https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/how-police-uni...) is maddening in itself. The end result is a weird form of anarchism - trial by public, one may call it IMO... in the absence of government regulation - no matter if due to incompetence, old age of those in decision-making power or bribery - individual actors simply do whatever they want (aka makes the most profit for them), unless the pressure of the public in form of protest campaigns reins them in a bit.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >The end result is a weird form of anarchism - trial by public, Oh thank you. That makes lots of sense.
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
    >Because the institutions that should have handled these responsibilities got broken down intentionally due to "starve the beast" libertarian ideology. Historically, the position of liberal/libertarian free market advocates has been that protecting and enforcing property rights is a core responsibility of the state - one of very few core responsibilities. You can probably find some fringe opinions that would question even this limited role of government, but I think you're going to find it very difficult to demonstrate that this is a significant political force. Underfunding or general ineffectiveness of the judiciary and law enforcement can be a consequence of many political and organsiational failures. You can find it in many countries around the world that could never be called remotely libertarian.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
The perpetrator probably isn’t in the same jurisdiction.

by dpifke 5y ago

maxgashkov 5y ago

It's one thing to expect companies to act on their own initiative, but to do nothing when the problem is proactively reported to them borders on negligence.

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
It's only negligence if they have an obligation to fix it.
scaryclam 5y ago
It would also be negligent to deny service based on a reported problem without evidence that the harm is real and tangible. If CF start to do that, then this is where it starts to look a lot like the legal process, so why reinvent something that already exists?

partiallypro 5y ago

If someone is running a meth lab on the property only accessible by your private road, and you know about it...you're complicit in the crime. Also, because of Cloudflare's reverse proxy you can't see who their host is, and with private registration you can't see who is behind it all. You have to go through a huge legal obstacle course just to prevent your customers from being scammed when Cloudflare could literally just flip a switch. Google will remove scam ads from its platform, though it doesn't host the websites behind them...it's basically the same thing. It's a means of operating the scam.

floatingatoll 5y ago
It’s not as simple as knowing that they’re using the road. In the US, they are forbidden from using the road only if you have denied them access to the road through either clearly posted no trespassing signs at quarter mile or less intervals or notified them either verbally or in writing that you are denying them access, and if no easement protects their access through your property to theirs, etc. So you would not only have to know, but have good reason not to deny them access other than to ignore or protect them of your own uncompelled free will.
syshum 5y ago
Interesting analogy, it fails pretty quickly though once you take a deeper look Your analogy amounts to a person having a private road, for which a random person comes buy proclaiming "hey there is meth lab up your road" from this you then jump to the conclusion that the person that owns the road now legally "knows" about the meth lab, thus if a methlab is found they are complicit. I would find this to be very lacking from a legal standpoint that some random person yelling an accusation at you constitutes "informing" someone of a fact to whit they would then become legally liable. No proof, evidence, or other actionable noticed has been given, so the owner can simply ignore you accusation and move along with their day, in fact legally that would be the best course because if they then investigated they could become complicit, but at the moment of accusation they are not
RNCTX 5y ago
> If someone is running a meth lab on the property only accessible by your private road, and you know about it...you're complicit in the crime. Uh, no I am not. It is illegal to landlock someone, this is a pretty common thing in rural areas. Let’s say I purchase all of the property between person X and the highway. Well, he has to have access to it so I have to give him a right of way. But that doesn’t make me the police. He’s responsible for what he does, not me. Or, if you think this is a grand idea, I think landlords should be responsible for crimes committed by tenants. If you make that a co-condition of these ridiculous IP laws they’d all be dead and gone in a week…
- b1daly 5y ago
  In the US landlords do have some liability for criminal conduct on their property whether committed by tenants or others. Most web services do have strict restrictions on conduct. This is a far cry from vigilantism. It’s messed up for Cloudfare to wash their hands of any responsibility here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    I'll tell you what the difference is, that no one ever points out... In the case of a crime being committed in a hotel room, the criminal is the nuisance. The hotel operator gladly participates with law enforcement to remove the nuisance. In the case of something as ridiculous as these plaintiff wedding dress makers claiming "intellectual property" over a white dress, the plaintiff is the nuisance, not the people they are accusing.
- hlesesne 5y ago
  This. There are numerous accounts of illegal activity at hotels, hostels, government sanctioned housing, college rental properties, and any privately owned, leased property, but no one, ever has been held accountable for illegal behavior (like domestic violence, illicit drugs, underage drinking, etc), so why should a SaaS?

danmur 5y ago

I wonder how effective Batman would be at fighting cybercrime.

saghm 5y ago
Would his "no killing" policy apply to processes? That could make it really hard to deal with since form of malware

saurik 5y ago

OK, this is actually an amazing framing, because it honestly does seem like way way too many otherwise-smart people seem to prefer the idea of all of their problems being solved by corporate vigilante billionaires--such as Cloudflare or Apple--than government, without seemingly caring about the negative effects of having justice dolled out by caped crusaders who do whatever they want while police are told to get out of the way...

webmobdev 5y ago
I have raised this same argument many times in various debates on Right to Privacy, free speech on online platforms etc. One counter point that regularly comes up is that people have become cynical of the system and feel that it doesn't respond to their need fast enough or even in an easy and accessible manner. This is partly true. Laws and regulations still haven't caught up to the various things online platforms are trying at a fast pace. (And that's by design in mature democracies - politicians are supposed to observe the effect of something on a society before deciding the best way to legislate on it). And thus people are being forced to turn to the corporates instead to address their need. I mean, who wouldn't prefer to just yell at Twitter or Facebook to take down a post compared to the convulated process of the judiciary to do it legally? Thankfully, the governments around the world are finally starting to debate laws and regulations on Privacy, Right to Repair, etc. are starting to legislate on it.

staticassertion 5y ago

Cloudflare has an ethical responsibility to moderate malicious content on their platform.

andrecarini 5y ago
Who gets to determine what is and isn't malicious?
- asdff 5y ago
  The law that says phishing is illegal. Cloudflare continuing to host the phishing website at this point amounts to aiding and abetting.
  - tremon 5y ago
    The law also says that its matter should be decided by a judge, and specifies how disputes should be handled. Cloudflare has not been appointed judge, nor is it a venue recognized by law for bringing disputes.
    - asdff 5y ago
      Then cloudflare should respond by forwarding this information to the authorities rather than sweeping it under the rug and continuing to collect money from the phishing website
  - agent327 5y ago
    ..._alleged_ phishing site. Who says the OP isn't the actual phishing site? Just because he posted here, we know for sure that he is the good guy and the other party the bad guy? It seems obvious that something phishy is going on, but that's for law enforcement to figure out. They can then instruct Cloudflare to take down the infringing site. It's not up to a random individual to tell Cloudflare to take down random sites, and it's not up to Cloudflare to decide on questions of law. It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", not "innocent until accused by a random dude on the internet".

ksec 5y ago

This. I dont understand how US got to to this point, having tech companies making morale judgement and law enforcement on pretty much every issue. This is not being snark, troll or whatever you what to call it. I am genuinely curious. How? Why? Did we arrived here. At one point you thought this is some thing that are amplified by social media, and they are a small minority. You ignore Social Media. Then you see this even on HN, or some other specific / niche forum. And someday you meet people in real life who actually believe in it. That company should do the right thing. And these people are suppose to be smart, from an educational or pay grade scale.

mschuster91 5y ago
> I dont understand how US got to to this point, having tech companies making morale judgement and law enforcement on pretty much every issue. Because the institutions that should have handled these responsibilities got broken down intentionally due to "starve the beast" libertarian ideology. Congress is gridlocked and plagued with cronyism, corruption and obstructionism for decades, and the fact that FPTP leads to extreme polarization doesn't help either. Regarding law enforcement, the problem is similar - the fact that police unions are so powerful that they can threaten democratically decided reform projects (e.g. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/how-police-unions-fight-reform https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/08/03/how-police-uni...) is maddening in itself. The end result is a weird form of anarchism - trial by public, one may call it IMO... in the absence of government regulation - no matter if due to incompetence, old age of those in decision-making power or bribery - individual actors simply do whatever they want (aka makes the most profit for them), unless the pressure of the public in form of protest campaigns reins them in a bit.
- ksec 5y ago
  >The end result is a weird form of anarchism - trial by public, Oh thank you. That makes lots of sense.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  >Because the institutions that should have handled these responsibilities got broken down intentionally due to "starve the beast" libertarian ideology. Historically, the position of liberal/libertarian free market advocates has been that protecting and enforcing property rights is a core responsibility of the state - one of very few core responsibilities. You can probably find some fringe opinions that would question even this limited role of government, but I think you're going to find it very difficult to demonstrate that this is a significant political force. Underfunding or general ineffectiveness of the judiciary and law enforcement can be a consequence of many political and organsiational failures. You can find it in many countries around the world that could never be called remotely libertarian.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

The perpetrator probably isn’t in the same jurisdiction.