2 ms·

> The information in WHOIS, in the DNS SOA record, in the network hosting the content, in the servers hosting the DNS, in the registrar's abuse contact, all say

> The information in WHOIS, in the DNS SOA record, in the network hosting the content, in the servers hosting the DNS, in the registrar's abuse contact, all say "Cloudflare". Cloudflare'll "pass along" a message for you and will happily refuse to tell you who actually owns the site. What does that matter? You can initiate a legal proceeding against a John Doe. And then the court would be able to subpoena Cloudflare for the information. That doesn't mean someone should sue Cloudflare for damages. > What's more, even when you can clearly show infringement How can you possibly "clearly show infringement" without a court proceeding? A service provider doesn't even have a reasonable mechanism to identify who the copyright holder is. > I'm not sure how you think "you sue them, not their hosting provider" is relevant in a discussion about Cloudflare unless you really didn't know all of this. There is a relevant distinction between issuing a subpoena for information and naming them as a defendant in a lawsuit.

michaelmrose 2y ago
Its reasonable to expect compliance without a court order at least in cases where every functional jurisdiction in the world agrees that the party so protected is engaging in immoral and illegal conduct. Whereas many edge cases exist wherein conduct on the internet may have differing interpretations nothing stops anyone from handling the massive intersection where all reasonable parties agree. Doing so in fact removes a lot of ammunition for arguments for more unworkable suggestions.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  If "every functional jurisdiction in the world" agrees then you don't need to go to a court in Moldova and then try to have the foreign ruling enforced in the US because you could have just gone directly to the courts in the US, right? The issue is that they're trying to sue the wrong party -- the provider instead of the customer -- which US law rightfully discourages, which is why they're trying to cheat through some convoluted cross-border jurisdictional shenanigans.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. They should block them from their service and forward the information they have available to the relevant authorities in jurisdictions which may be positioned to act against the user. Nobody has any expectation of privacy in their crimes.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. Do you not realize the level of abuse this opens up? The company has no capacity to do thorough fact finding. They can't subpoena anyone or put them under oath. Trolls will send them complaints with plausible-sounding claims and their only practical options are to execute them without adequately investigating or to ignore them. The only non-abusive option is to ignore them and leave the law enforcement to law enforcement.
      - michaelmrose 2y ago
        Does it look like a bank of America login page and not belong to BOA oh look its crime. Not sure? Did officer friendly call to investigate? Give him the contact details right off and take action only pending litigation. If you take only unambiguously correct actions it will be harder for the government to push for much less friendly options later.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Does it look like a bank of America login page and not belong to BOA oh look its crime. How do you know if it belongs to BOA? The name of the company/contractor on the bill is regularly different than the name of service being hosted. Even then, how do you know that it's crime rather than e.g. part of some computer security coursework or a research study on phishing or a misconfigured page where somebody was doing a copy and paste and accidentally pasted the wrong thing into their site? The answer, of course, is that if it's crime then the people who think it's crime should report it to law enforcement to conduct an investigation. Then if it is crime, the perpetrators get arrested instead of just having their account closed (tipping them off that they've been discovered) and opening another one under a different name.

michaelmrose 2y ago

Its reasonable to expect compliance without a court order at least in cases where every functional jurisdiction in the world agrees that the party so protected is engaging in immoral and illegal conduct. Whereas many edge cases exist wherein conduct on the internet may have differing interpretations nothing stops anyone from handling the massive intersection where all reasonable parties agree. Doing so in fact removes a lot of ammunition for arguments for more unworkable suggestions.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
If "every functional jurisdiction in the world" agrees then you don't need to go to a court in Moldova and then try to have the foreign ruling enforced in the US because you could have just gone directly to the courts in the US, right? The issue is that they're trying to sue the wrong party -- the provider instead of the customer -- which US law rightfully discourages, which is why they're trying to cheat through some convoluted cross-border jurisdictional shenanigans.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. They should block them from their service and forward the information they have available to the relevant authorities in jurisdictions which may be positioned to act against the user. Nobody has any expectation of privacy in their crimes.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. Do you not realize the level of abuse this opens up? The company has no capacity to do thorough fact finding. They can't subpoena anyone or put them under oath. Trolls will send them complaints with plausible-sounding claims and their only practical options are to execute them without adequately investigating or to ignore them. The only non-abusive option is to ignore them and leave the law enforcement to law enforcement.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      Does it look like a bank of America login page and not belong to BOA oh look its crime. Not sure? Did officer friendly call to investigate? Give him the contact details right off and take action only pending litigation. If you take only unambiguously correct actions it will be harder for the government to push for much less friendly options later.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > Does it look like a bank of America login page and not belong to BOA oh look its crime. How do you know if it belongs to BOA? The name of the company/contractor on the bill is regularly different than the name of service being hosted. Even then, how do you know that it's crime rather than e.g. part of some computer security coursework or a research study on phishing or a misconfigured page where somebody was doing a copy and paste and accidentally pasted the wrong thing into their site? The answer, of course, is that if it's crime then the people who think it's crime should report it to law enforcement to conduct an investigation. Then if it is crime, the perpetrators get arrested instead of just having their account closed (tipping them off that they've been discovered) and opening another one under a different name.