4 ms·

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 C

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?

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?