4 ms·

Except that they don't respect court verdicts - e.g. in one case they lost against an Italian court "US-based Cloudflare disagreed. It countered that the Italia

Except that they don't respect court verdicts - e.g. in one case they lost against an Italian court "US-based Cloudflare disagreed. It countered that the Italian court didn’t have jurisdiction and that the e-Commerce directive didn’t apply to foreign companies, but those objections were rejected." How can you argue that a legal ruling is legally invalid (besides appealing it) and use this as a supposed justification for not complying with a court judgment? Even in that article they say "While we will generally follow legal orders to restrict security and conduit services," - how can you say this? No other business says "while we will generally accept court judgments..."

judge2020 4y ago
Their point for not respecting verdicts is: > Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of whatever jurisdiction is willing to be the most restrictive. It is pretty hard to suggest that someone can sue Cloudflare in a random country with either a corrupt or weak judicial system (not saying that's the case here, but in general) then get it taken down globally. To add, taking things down in a single country might not be super effective with the way the internet works, and the court might see someone browsing from a VPN and claim that a geoip-based block is insufficient for compliance. Although, I don't know the exact case you're referring to or if it's covered by this statement.
- jackson1442 4y ago
  How can we leave something for the courts to decide while at the same time dismissing all courts other than the US? Especially when you consider neither the hosting provider of the site in question, nor the target of this wave of harassment are from the US.
  - NoraCodes 4y ago
    Yep, I think this is a critical point. People in this thread keep saying things like, "If KiwiFarms is doing illegal things, prosecute them!" while ignoring that it's Cloudflare and other infrastructure providers that enable them to do those things across borders.
  - philippejara 4y ago
    At that point why bother with cloudflare? if you have a credible legal case to take down the hosting of the website you make a legal case in the place where it is being hosted and use that to get it down. I can't really see any reason for a court of law to force cloudflare to not service someone given that the obvious implications that the one asking for that to happen wants to commit a felony, or at the very least make the target susceptible to one, assuming cloudflare isn't hosting anything of course.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      Because the hosting company may be not bothered and actively supporting the extremist content. (guess if this applies in this case...)
      - philippejara 4y ago
        The hosting company views are completely irrelevant once they receive a legal order to stop hosting something.
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  That's exactly what happened with FOSTA and they roll over and ask for their tummies to be tickled, because Cloudflare's official policy is that the lives of sex workers isn't terribly important.
abigail95 4y ago
If you pick a jurisdiction, like the US, to settle most of your disputes, that provides a minimum floor for everyone to understand and work out what should happen. If you don't - then the legal standards you have will be those of the worst country in the world. If Iran and North Korea issue court rulings banning cloudflare, should that affect people using cloudflare everywhere else?

judge2020 4y ago

Their point for not respecting verdicts is: > Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of whatever jurisdiction is willing to be the most restrictive. It is pretty hard to suggest that someone can sue Cloudflare in a random country with either a corrupt or weak judicial system (not saying that's the case here, but in general) then get it taken down globally. To add, taking things down in a single country might not be super effective with the way the internet works, and the court might see someone browsing from a VPN and claim that a geoip-based block is insufficient for compliance. Although, I don't know the exact case you're referring to or if it's covered by this statement.

jackson1442 4y ago
How can we leave something for the courts to decide while at the same time dismissing all courts other than the US? Especially when you consider neither the hosting provider of the site in question, nor the target of this wave of harassment are from the US.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  Yep, I think this is a critical point. People in this thread keep saying things like, "If KiwiFarms is doing illegal things, prosecute them!" while ignoring that it's Cloudflare and other infrastructure providers that enable them to do those things across borders.
- philippejara 4y ago
  At that point why bother with cloudflare? if you have a credible legal case to take down the hosting of the website you make a legal case in the place where it is being hosted and use that to get it down. I can't really see any reason for a court of law to force cloudflare to not service someone given that the obvious implications that the one asking for that to happen wants to commit a felony, or at the very least make the target susceptible to one, assuming cloudflare isn't hosting anything of course.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Because the hosting company may be not bothered and actively supporting the extremist content. (guess if this applies in this case...)
    - philippejara 4y ago
      The hosting company views are completely irrelevant once they receive a legal order to stop hosting something.
Mindwipe 4y ago
That's exactly what happened with FOSTA and they roll over and ask for their tummies to be tickled, because Cloudflare's official policy is that the lives of sex workers isn't terribly important.

abigail95 4y ago

If you pick a jurisdiction, like the US, to settle most of your disputes, that provides a minimum floor for everyone to understand and work out what should happen. If you don't - then the legal standards you have will be those of the worst country in the world. If Iran and North Korea issue court rulings banning cloudflare, should that affect people using cloudflare everywhere else?