5 ms·

Actually it's currently not blocked on the ISPs I've tested, and I know why. The existing order doesn't cover CloudFlare, and much of the blocking was IP-based

Actually it's currently not blocked on the ISPs I've tested, and I know why. The existing order doesn't cover CloudFlare, and much of the blocking was IP-based false route injection, not DNS-based or HTTP-Host:/TLS SNI-based. If there is no existing censorship infrastructure installed at the respondent ISPs which can fulfil the terms of the existing court order, the applicant may need to go back to court - and it may need a re-hearing, as the order was allowed only on the basis that existing infrastructure could do it. I don't think the Digital Economy Act site blocking provisions made it in, so there's no primary legislation, no case law that I know of (bearing in mind I'm just an interested layperson!), this specific thing was discussed and specifically dropped in Parliament, and the balance of harm has changed. I don't know if it's a honeypot - the staff are reportedly locked out, and CloudFlare (US) might be as neutral as they can be when it comes to what they reverse-proxy, but The Pirate Bay (real or not) is possibly the most internationally-notorious website in the world; a ruthless test of CloudFlare's legal and technical resilience if it's not FBI. (I certainly wouldn't expect them to hold the line in these circumstances!) But I can't see what the site itself would really get the FBI/etc. that they can't get by easier means: these are all public torrents and they run no tracker. Either way, I'm getting popcorn.

jrochkind1 12y ago
Woah! Good observation! Yeah, this could get good. Will countries block Cloudflare entirely, potentially forcing cloudflare to refuse to have piratebay as a customer? Will they require cloudflare to provide special IP's used just for piratebay? Will they give up? It would not have occured to me that something as simple and widespread as using cloudflare -- so widespread by 'legit' businesses that nobody can think it's just a tool for criminals -- would put such a wrench in current censorship attempts. Go internet!
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  There's some precedent in that: for example, certain actions against the Chinese "Golden Shield" involving blocked content and well-known CDNs. They were willing to, um, "harmonise" it, almost no matter what the cost. I'm calling the bluff of Western governments taking the same line. They ask about it, sure, and they'd do it to little sites that wouldn't fight back or that they rule illegal, but to do it to powerful, well-known, extremely popular sites is a huge, overt, draconian step: one they and the populace supporting them will hopefully find too distasteful to bear. One that reminds them about the cost, drawbacks and hopelessness of what they are doing, and forces them to ask the hard questions about whatever they think the benefit is, and whether it's really worth it. It's an interesting anti-censorship tactic I've studied for a while. It is however essentially playing chicken with nation-states to see what collateral damage they're willing to accept to take control of what their citizens have access to before they give up, however. It thus may fail, but the stakes can always, potentially, be raised again. The ultimate failure mode for it is a nation-state deciding to disconnect from the internet completely - but that's what so-called "guerrilla networking" is for, because fuck that noise. The tactic is also potentially applicable to even the most advanced DPI-based protocol blocking, if you have a indistinguishable link protocol and a set of techniques to masquerade such a protocol as more recognisable protocols. I don't have anything to release regarding that yet. <g>
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    I feel like if, say, the UK, actually blocked Cloudflare -- Cloudflare wouldn't just take it, it would be too hard for their business. They'd try to work something out so the UK really just could block piratebay, or they'd fire piratebay as a customer. Either one of which would be really bad PR for cloudflare among the digirati. They wouldn't want to do it. Perhaps they'd manage to work something else out with the (eg) UK government. But I don't think they'd just accept all their customers being blocked, they'd lose too much business. No matter what happens, it'd keep the topic in the news, and demonstrate what a mess it is, so be a success on that front.

jrochkind1 12y ago

Woah! Good observation! Yeah, this could get good. Will countries block Cloudflare entirely, potentially forcing cloudflare to refuse to have piratebay as a customer? Will they require cloudflare to provide special IP's used just for piratebay? Will they give up? It would not have occured to me that something as simple and widespread as using cloudflare -- so widespread by 'legit' businesses that nobody can think it's just a tool for criminals -- would put such a wrench in current censorship attempts. Go internet!

AlyssaRowan 12y ago
There's some precedent in that: for example, certain actions against the Chinese "Golden Shield" involving blocked content and well-known CDNs. They were willing to, um, "harmonise" it, almost no matter what the cost. I'm calling the bluff of Western governments taking the same line. They ask about it, sure, and they'd do it to little sites that wouldn't fight back or that they rule illegal, but to do it to powerful, well-known, extremely popular sites is a huge, overt, draconian step: one they and the populace supporting them will hopefully find too distasteful to bear. One that reminds them about the cost, drawbacks and hopelessness of what they are doing, and forces them to ask the hard questions about whatever they think the benefit is, and whether it's really worth it. It's an interesting anti-censorship tactic I've studied for a while. It is however essentially playing chicken with nation-states to see what collateral damage they're willing to accept to take control of what their citizens have access to before they give up, however. It thus may fail, but the stakes can always, potentially, be raised again. The ultimate failure mode for it is a nation-state deciding to disconnect from the internet completely - but that's what so-called "guerrilla networking" is for, because fuck that noise. The tactic is also potentially applicable to even the most advanced DPI-based protocol blocking, if you have a indistinguishable link protocol and a set of techniques to masquerade such a protocol as more recognisable protocols. I don't have anything to release regarding that yet. <g>
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  I feel like if, say, the UK, actually blocked Cloudflare -- Cloudflare wouldn't just take it, it would be too hard for their business. They'd try to work something out so the UK really just could block piratebay, or they'd fire piratebay as a customer. Either one of which would be really bad PR for cloudflare among the digirati. They wouldn't want to do it. Perhaps they'd manage to work something else out with the (eg) UK government. But I don't think they'd just accept all their customers being blocked, they'd lose too much business. No matter what happens, it'd keep the topic in the news, and demonstrate what a mess it is, so be a success on that front.