Jump to content
Jazzwineman

Why is CLOUDFLARE TOLERATED

Recommended Posts

When are the blacklisters going to block Cloudflare as hosters of spam, terrorist activity, copyright infringements and on and on.

I have little doubt in my mind that all of the Russian phony, identity thieving porn dating site nonsense that yahoo and others do not block is being paid for by Putin to Cloudflare. No question they sponsored Russian emails and sites that attacked our country during the 2016 elections.

Prince- their President -can give his nonsensical answers and I can point you to some quite quickly, but he has a law degree and knows better. Bottom line is that for all the good Cloudflare does, they are EQUALLY as bad and allowing millions of pieces of fraud to flow to around the web. Some of the dating emails are loaded with porn photos and go to many children as well. go to the 1:10:00 segment of this discussion and see if you think he is nothing more than a liar and ask yourself, what is he hiding and are his excuses good enough to justify the amount of spam they allow. I would bet that Spamcops has sent more then 100-250k complaints to their abuse dept with no action.

Tom in Dallas

Edited by Jazzwineman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within this SpamCop forum covering the fight against spam, the Lounge is the correct place for this discussion.  While opinions are welcome and have been expressed in the passed, "we" must also moderate our "free speech" on this forum to avoid admonition on political, religious or slanderous statements.

 

 

5 hours ago, Jazzwineman said:

When are the blacklisters going to block Cloudflare as hosters of spam,

Keep in mind that I, LKing, am only a volunteer on this forum trying to keep this forum useful to those having issues with receiving spam and/or fighting spam. Opinions I express are mine and may not reflect the position of the owners or supporter of this forum.

Not being able to draw conclusions about blocklisters in general because each BL has their own rules for which IP to block and for how long, a blanket blocking of Cloudflare would, it seems to me, to be as irrational as blocking gmail/yahoo/outlook because of the large amount of spam sent from mailboxes in these domains.

A vary tight definition of spam is 'unsolicited commercial email from a company which you do not/have not had a relationship.'  Many people/organizations, SpamCop included, have expanded that definition, but no generally accepted definition included specific content.  If you start including email as spam only because you disapprove of the content, that does become censorship.

There are on the books in most countries laws against terrorist activity, copyright infringements, etc.  Whether those laws are enforced or not, is a separate question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lking said:

Within this SpamCop forum covering the fight against spam, the Lounge is the correct place for this discussion.  While opinions are welcome and have been expressed in the passed, "we" must also moderate our "free speech" on this forum to avoid admonition on political, religious or slanderous statements.

Yes I'm in Australia much opinion is based/formed (groomed) on media feeding one nips of red cordial to have one grow pointy heads!
I find Cloudfare do react on many of the abuse reports I have sent them (not all)
Try their abuse form to prioritize your complaint
https://www.cloudflare.com/abuse/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 6:25 PM, petzl said:

Yes I'm in Australia much opinion is based/formed (groomed) on media feeding one nips of red cordial to have one grow pointy heads!
I find Cloudfare do react on many of the abuse reports I have sent them (not all)
Try their abuse form to prioritize your complaint
https://www.cloudflare.com/abuse/ 

I have spoken all the way up to the number 3 in command of Cloudlfare. They respond with utter nonsense- to wit: "

Please be aware Cloudflare offers network service solutions, including a reverse proxy, pass-through security service and a content distribution network (CDN).

Because Cloudflare is a reverse proxy, our IP addresses appear in whois and DNS records for websites using our services. Cloudflare is not a hosting provider, and we do not have access to our customer's content."

You can go look at the TOS ( https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/ ) specifically sections 5, 7 and 11 and that is in complete contradiction of what their abuse dept. writes. Again you are WRONG about their attitude and I ask you to go listen to the YouTube video listed above and start at the 1:10:00  and listen for the first 2 questions and you tell me. They are making money as they did from 2016 to let the Russians run amok with their fraud and pron and identity theft sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 1:36 PM, Lking said:

Within this SpamCop forum covering the fight against spam, the Lounge is the correct place for this discussion.  While opinions are welcome and have been expressed in the passed, "we" must also moderate our "free speech" on this forum to avoid admonition on political, religious or slanderous statements.

 

 

Keep in mind that I, LKing, am only a volunteer on this forum trying to keep this forum useful to those having issues with receiving spam and/or fighting spam. Opinions I express are mine and may not reflect the position of the owners or supporter of this forum.

Not being able to draw conclusions about blocklisters in general because each BL has their own rules for which IP to block and for how long, a blanket blocking of Cloudflare would, it seems to me, to be as irrational as blocking gmail/yahoo/outlook because of the large amount of spam sent from mailboxes in these domains.

A vary tight definition of spam is 'unsolicited commercial email from a company which you do not/have not had a relationship.'  Many people/organizations, SpamCop included, have expanded that definition, but no generally accepted definition included specific content.  If you start including email as spam only because you disapprove of the content, that does become censorship.

There are on the books in most countries laws against terrorist activity, copyright infringements, etc.  Whether those laws are enforced or not, is a separate question.

Censorship is not defined as not permitting a lewd ad going to children that is a fraud, full of malware if you go to the site and that they seek to lure you into signing up for no purpose other than identity theft.???????? If people want to join a meet and f... site that is their adult business, but being a follower of William Douglas and I doubt you know who that is, I am a purist on the first amendment. However that doe snot mean that censorship is defined in any way to not allow criminal behavior as they clearly have in many cases that have zero to do with free speech.

Are you suggesting that the US and the States do away with their deceptive trade practices laws and let people be taken advantage of my unscrupulous or fraudulent people in the name of Free Speech?

Cloudflare  hosts pirate web sites like solar movies, movie 4k ect and these are not free speech sites , but sites making money giving away other people's property that affect Indy producers and blockbusters as well to infect visitors with malware. i do not think a slippery slope exists when private enterprise -different legally than governments- says you do not meet the qualifications of using my private services. No different than a company has a right to run a background check and say you based on your past and perhaps present are not worth to be with out company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The community who regularly contribute to this forum is made up of volunteers from a variety of backgrounds. Some of us (myself included) live outside of the USA, and have a different set of legal and cultural considerations to bring to any discussions. One thing we have in common is a dislike of unwanted email. It's not always easy to effectively deal with the "spam" issue when the people who receive the reports sent on behalf of Spamcop users don't seem to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jazzwineman said:

Censorship is not defined as not permitting a lewd ad going to children that is a fraud, full of malware if you go to the site and that they seek to lure you into signing up for no purpose other than identity theft.????????

We disagree about the definition of “Censorship”  I use the definition as stated by English Oxford Living Dictionaries

Quote

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

The internet would be part of “etc."

Using that definition of “censorship” and the definition of spam, “unsolicited commercial email” which I expanded on above; SpamCop’s block list (SCBL) is concerned with spam, not content.  By that I mean the SCBL identifies, and restricts recite, of email from the sender of email that recipients have identify as meeting the SpamCop definition of spam.  To focus on the content of the email only, I think would be censorship.

<opinion> I do not want, my Government, my ISP, your Government, SpamCop, or anyone else or organization deciding, outside of a court, what can be available on the internet. </opinion>

Content that laws forbid or restrict should NOT be allowed.  That is different. Laws in a free society are written by duly elected representatives and enforced by proper authorities and courts.  SpamCop nor other block list, qualify nor have the power to control what is on the internet. Nor do many others that would restrict internet or email content.  Most people have opinions about how the internet should and shouldn’t be used.  But that is what they are; Opinions. They do not have the authority of law.

It should be kept in mind that the SPBL helps, those that choose to use it, identify email they do not want to receive in their inbox.  SCBL does not prevent the email from being sent.

Yes, as a courtesy to the administrators of the ISP hosting the source a spam report may be sent.  It is hoped that the administrator will make a business decision that it will be better for them and their other clients to “cleans” their client list (or help a client remove a virus, etc.).

We may all agree that some internet content does not reflect well on the 4 million years of human evolution.  We may not all agree on what to do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lking said:

We disagree about the definition of “Censorship”  I use the definition as stated by English Oxford Living Dictionaries

The internet would be part of “etc."

Using that definition of “censorship” and the definition of spam, “unsolicited commercial email” which I expanded on above; SpamCop’s block list (SCBL) is concerned with spam, not content.  By that I mean the SCBL identifies, and restricts recite, of email from the sender of email that recipients have identify as meeting the SpamCop definition of spam.  To focus on the content of the email only, I think would be censorship.

<opinion> I do not want, my Government, my ISP, your Government, SpamCop, or anyone else or organization deciding, outside of a court, what can be available on the internet. </opinion>

Content that laws forbid or restrict should NOT be allowed.  That is different. Laws in a free society are written by duly elected representatives and enforced by proper authorities and courts.  SpamCop nor other block list, qualify nor have the power to control what is on the internet. Nor do many others that would restrict internet or email content.  Most people have opinions about how the internet should and shouldn’t be used.  But that is what they are; Opinions. They do not have the authority of law.

It should be kept in mind that the SPBL helps, those that choose to use it, identify email they do not want to receive in their inbox.  SCBL does not prevent the email from being sent.

Yes, as a courtesy to the administrators of the ISP hosting the source a spam report may be sent.  It is hoped that the administrator will make a business decision that it will be better for them and their other clients to “cleans” their client list (or help a client remove a virus, etc.).

We may all agree that some internet content does not reflect well on the 4 million years of human evolution.  We may not all agree on what to do about it.

Here is the flaw in your argument, although I can clearly make the assumption that you are a talk radio and fox news listener.  It is not unlike a business that has all the legal rights, but continue with allowing criminal activity to take place on their property is not going to be protected from  action against them. Cloudflare is in the same position. Can you defend Cloudflare allowing a known terrorist group to hide behind their services in the name of freedom of expression??? Do you feel that "content" that s hiding the sender to send clear  (beyond the fraud) porn to children fits under you definition of censorship. Clearly if you were to do the same, I know quite well what would happen to you and Cloudflare should be held to the same standard. Do you think, that fronting for the Russians as they attacked this country in 2016 is an appropriate activity????  Perhaps you can check the federal Statues on CONSPIRACY.

"Content that laws forbid or restrict should NOT be allowed. ", but as you further state BL are concerned with the sender and not content although the content is hidden my Cloudflare. To be honest, your argument is similar to that of James St Clair in his arguments for Nixon in Nixon vs. the US. In your case you use the ".ect" as an excuse to  proliferate illegal  or fraudulent activities that are clearly unwanted. In the US we have clear legal definitions of censorship, some of which I strongly disagree with (especially those that deal with community standards where local bigots make decisions)

So are you really saying that Cloudflare should be allowed to front for and hide  those, that are not even from the USA and one of their known adversaries,  protection under the First Amendment if they were teaching the techniques of sabotage, the assassination of the President, the filching of documents from public files, the planting of bombs, the art of street warfare, and the like???

Further as an interesting side note- do you believe that privacy is a right under the Constitution???

 

My own belief would come fro this in WOD dissent in Dennis v. United States: "

Free speech has occupied an exalted position because of the high service it has given our society. Its protection is essential to the very existence of a democracy. The airing of ideas releases pressures which otherwise might become destructive. When ideas compete in the market for acceptance, full and free discussion exposes the false and they gain few adherents. Full and free discussion even of ideas we hate encourages the testing of our own prejudices and preconceptions. Full and free discussion keeps a society from becoming stagnant and unprepared for the stresses and strains that work to tear all civilizations apart.

Full and free discussion has indeed been the first article of our faith. We have founded our political system on it. It has been the safeguard of every religious, political, philosophical, economic, and racial group amongst us. We have counted on it to keep us from embracing what is cheap and false; we have trusted the common sense of our [341 U.S. 494, 585]   people to choose the doctrine true to our genius and to reject the rest. This has been the one single outstanding tenet that has made our institutions the symbol of freedom and equality. We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress a despised minority than to let them vent their spleen. We have above all else feared the political censor. We have wanted a land where our people can be exposed to all the diverse creeds and cultures of the world."

 

Your comments appreciated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not take your bat on SCOTUS judges or the source of my news. You obviously can "devine" more about my beliefs than I understand and a better understanding of the law than others.  I do not have time.  Maybe someone else wants to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is that you want to say it is fine for Cloudflare to allow the usage of their networks by sites that are actively engaged in fraud and identity theft and terrorism and piracy of property. I find none of that associated with the rights of free speech only illegal activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×