4 ms·

..._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

..._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".

asdff 5y ago
You are right that cloudflare doesn't have to take down the site, but the fact that they aren't, you know, forwarding this information to law enforcement for them to decide, and instead opting to continue to collect profit from the phisher really looks like aiding and abetting from the outset.
- agent327 5y ago
  That's really the job of the injured party, not Cloudflare. If someone calls my office and tells me that one of our customers is doing something illegal, I will not, under any circumstance, forward that information to law enforcement. Why would I? All I have is an unproven accusation by someone I know absolutely nothing about! What, exactly, is stopping the person making the accusation from calling the police himself, instead of me? Why is he contacting me - is that because contacting the police would get him into legal hot water? If so, would it be wise for me to act as his unpaid proxy in this? No, of course not! Again, we still don't even know if the person making the accusation is in fact the injured party, or guilty of the very fraud he is accusing the other website of! Why are you trusting him at all? You don't know either party, you don't know the websites, so what are you basing your preference on?
staticassertion 5y ago
This is such a stupid way to think about it ("but what even IS malware") and you're obviously completely ignorant as to how threats like phishing are handled.

asdff 5y ago

You are right that cloudflare doesn't have to take down the site, but the fact that they aren't, you know, forwarding this information to law enforcement for them to decide, and instead opting to continue to collect profit from the phisher really looks like aiding and abetting from the outset.

agent327 5y ago
That's really the job of the injured party, not Cloudflare. If someone calls my office and tells me that one of our customers is doing something illegal, I will not, under any circumstance, forward that information to law enforcement. Why would I? All I have is an unproven accusation by someone I know absolutely nothing about! What, exactly, is stopping the person making the accusation from calling the police himself, instead of me? Why is he contacting me - is that because contacting the police would get him into legal hot water? If so, would it be wise for me to act as his unpaid proxy in this? No, of course not! Again, we still don't even know if the person making the accusation is in fact the injured party, or guilty of the very fraud he is accusing the other website of! Why are you trusting him at all? You don't know either party, you don't know the websites, so what are you basing your preference on?

staticassertion 5y ago

This is such a stupid way to think about it ("but what even IS malware") and you're obviously completely ignorant as to how threats like phishing are handled.