Not specifically. My inquiry is mainly related to a post Spamhaus published yesterday:
We're deeply concerned about the abuse management and prevention policies of Cloudflare, read the full article to understand what we're seeing, the critical issues, and our recommendations for change.
@dangoodin Now imagine that those millions of websites all look exactly the same on the wire, so any network-level controls are useless unless they're decrypting. If Cloudflare isn't taking down malicious sites it's front-ending, it's a huge threat vector for companies.
It's awesome for personal privacy tho!
@dangoodin Dan, any reports going to abuse@cloudflare are ignored
More so if they are sent via the spamcop service
@dangoodin I can provide the Cloudflare narrative: They state that they aren't the justice system, and as a provider of critical internet infrastructure becoming one would be a bad idea:
- https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer
- https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295
I, personally, agree with this perspective, though notably Cloudflare has deviated from these principles on occasion, eg. in the case of KiwiFarms.
https://torrentfreak.com/daily-stormer-termination-haunts-cloudflare-in-online-piracy-case-170929/
Earlier today, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. We've stopped proxying their traffic and stopped answering DNS requests for their sites. We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again.
@swift @dangoodin I think my argument hinges upon the assertion that Cloudflare is a critical infrastructure provider. If they, in this position, begin making judgement calls, this is a slippery slope, as there is no objectivity in ethics. For instance, a homophobe might request Cloudflare stops protecting a LGBTQ site because think of the children. It’s just not their role to make these choices
1/?
@swift @dangoodin This argument also hinges on the fact that the anti-DDoS infrastructure is free. I think the “we can’t make decisions about who we take money from” argument is weak.
To make an analogy, the former is building a wall for protection around a city but excluding populations you as ruler find unfavorable.
The latter is a fencing company that builds fences around homes that pay them to do so
I'm interested in knowing what the experience is of people who make abuse requests to Fastly et al. I know how to get Fastly's stated policies.