4 ms·

I think to make a comment like that you also have to explain why they have that obligation, especially in light of the downsides of them having that responsibil

I think to make a comment like that you also have to explain why they have that obligation, especially in light of the downsides of them having that responsibility/power being as large as they are.

asdff 5y ago
Because there is documented illegal activity going on? If hotel staff were alerted to a murder within their hotel, they would respond by calling the police, not sitting on their hands because the murderer paid for the room.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  Calling the police on discovery of a death is their duty, ejecting the alledged murderer is not. What you're talking about here may be akin to giving Cloudflare the power and the obligation to act as police force, judge, jury an executioner. Besides, if a domain owner can switch to Fastly, Akami, Cloudfront or any other CDN, are we really solving this problem in the right place, or are we just giving Cloudflare extra responsibilities and powers that they shouldn't have?
  - asdff 5y ago
    Cloudflare isn't even telling the police any of this information. They took it from OP, said "OK, we will continue to profit off this client," and swept it under the rug. They don't have to be the judge jury and executioner here, they should however pass that information along to said legal system rather than continue to turn a profit off of the criminal behavior.
raffraffraff 5y ago
Exactly. They should also explain why Cloudflare should have the right. Once they have the power to turn off websites, that power can be abused. Do you switch a site off because it broke a law? Which law? In which country? Iran? Or China? Did it upset someone? An Imam? A politician? A bearded wokebro? Your grandmother? 5 years ago I might have agreed that Cloudflare should intervene a lot more. Now I don't.
- m12k 5y ago
  It's like bad software architecture. Imagine we already have a security module responsible for deciding what requests are properly authenticated and authorized. And we have a service module responsible for some of the processioning of requests. Now someone comes along saying they think the security module isn't doing a good enough job - and their proposed solution isn't to fix the security module, it's to let the service module do request authorization too. And not even by asking for input from the security module about what should be authorized, or having a shared definition of authorization rules that they both rely on, but by letting the service module decide on its own what it thinks should be authorized. You'd tell whoever proposed that, our system already has that responsibility living in a single place, and spreading it out to multiple places is how you turn your code base into an unmaintainable mess, thankyouverymuch.
- ksec 5y ago
  >5 years ago I might have agreed that Cloudflare should intervene a lot more. Can you expand on this a little more. What were your thoughts 5 years ago, what changed your mind?
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Sorry, are you asking why Cloudflare has a right to terminate a business relationship? The most immediate reason for that is of course that you grant them that right when you sign the customer agreement, the default one even containing: > Additionally, we may at our sole discretion terminate your user account or suspend or terminate your access to the Service at any time, with or without notice for any reason or no reason at all.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  It's their service, you host content on their terms already. Of course they have the right to remove content that does not comply with their terms.
staticassertion 5y ago
Sure. They provide a service, that service is being used as a vehicle to do harm. > especially in light of the downsides of them having that responsibility/power being as large as they are. No clue what you're referring to. They almost certainly already do this, they may just be doing it badly.

I think to make a comment like that you also have to explain why they have that obligation, especially in light of the downsides of them having that responsibility/power being as large as they are.

asdff 5y ago

Because there is documented illegal activity going on? If hotel staff were alerted to a murder within their hotel, they would respond by calling the police, not sitting on their hands because the murderer paid for the room.

raffraffraff 5y ago
Calling the police on discovery of a death is their duty, ejecting the alledged murderer is not. What you're talking about here may be akin to giving Cloudflare the power and the obligation to act as police force, judge, jury an executioner. Besides, if a domain owner can switch to Fastly, Akami, Cloudfront or any other CDN, are we really solving this problem in the right place, or are we just giving Cloudflare extra responsibilities and powers that they shouldn't have?
- asdff 5y ago
  Cloudflare isn't even telling the police any of this information. They took it from OP, said "OK, we will continue to profit off this client," and swept it under the rug. They don't have to be the judge jury and executioner here, they should however pass that information along to said legal system rather than continue to turn a profit off of the criminal behavior.

raffraffraff 5y ago

Exactly. They should also explain why Cloudflare should have the right. Once they have the power to turn off websites, that power can be abused. Do you switch a site off because it broke a law? Which law? In which country? Iran? Or China? Did it upset someone? An Imam? A politician? A bearded wokebro? Your grandmother? 5 years ago I might have agreed that Cloudflare should intervene a lot more. Now I don't.

m12k 5y ago
It's like bad software architecture. Imagine we already have a security module responsible for deciding what requests are properly authenticated and authorized. And we have a service module responsible for some of the processioning of requests. Now someone comes along saying they think the security module isn't doing a good enough job - and their proposed solution isn't to fix the security module, it's to let the service module do request authorization too. And not even by asking for input from the security module about what should be authorized, or having a shared definition of authorization rules that they both rely on, but by letting the service module decide on its own what it thinks should be authorized. You'd tell whoever proposed that, our system already has that responsibility living in a single place, and spreading it out to multiple places is how you turn your code base into an unmaintainable mess, thankyouverymuch.
ksec 5y ago
>5 years ago I might have agreed that Cloudflare should intervene a lot more. Can you expand on this a little more. What were your thoughts 5 years ago, what changed your mind?
SiempreViernes 5y ago
Sorry, are you asking why Cloudflare has a right to terminate a business relationship? The most immediate reason for that is of course that you grant them that right when you sign the customer agreement, the default one even containing: > Additionally, we may at our sole discretion terminate your user account or suspend or terminate your access to the Service at any time, with or without notice for any reason or no reason at all.
staticassertion 5y ago
It's their service, you host content on their terms already. Of course they have the right to remove content that does not comply with their terms.

staticassertion 5y ago

Sure. They provide a service, that service is being used as a vehicle to do harm. > especially in light of the downsides of them having that responsibility/power being as large as they are. No clue what you're referring to. They almost certainly already do this, they may just be doing it badly.