Because they're two different threats, one that's within the users' purview and the other is the service operator's. 1) Cloudflare is active MITM & payload delivery platform. Use a throw-away to browse, you can't be sure of the integrity. Oops. 2) I hope IA and other parties don't know I was drooling over TS dox. Use an anonymizing platform. If you're relying on the operator to 'not keep logs' you're doing it wrong, not JY. -Travis On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Razer <[1]Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote: On 10/09/2015 02:52 AM, rysiek wrote: > Why the fuck are people on this list slamming Snowden and freedom.press for > using Cloudflare, and at the same time defending JYA for sending out server > logs with dates and IP addresses? Because Cloudflare won't show anyone (except the feds) what they're logging. That SEEMS to give the feds a (snigger) monopolistic advantage. > CloudFlare, which boasts that 4% of all web requests flows through > its network, in essence serves as gatekeeper to control the flow of > visitors to given sites and to verify that those visitors have a > legitimate purpose in visiting them. It has advanced detection > features that complicate (or thwart entirely) attempts by > automated robots to scrape data from and monitor these forums, > including browser tests and so -called “captcha codes.” > > In fact, two of ISIS’ top three online chat forums — including the > notorious Alplatformmedia.com — are currently guarded by CloudFlare. > Without such protection from CloudFlare, these sites would almost > certainly succumb to the same relentless online attacks that have > completely collapsed several major jihadi web forums over the past two > years. In 2013, after CloudFlare was contacted by journalists over > allegations that their service was providing protection to terrorist > websites, the company’s CEO Matthew Prince published a full > explanation of their policy in this regard. > > According to Prince, it would not “be right for us to monitor the > content that flows through our network and make determinations on what > is and what is not politically appropriate. Frankly, that would be > creepy... Removing this, or any other site, from our network wouldn't > remove the content from the Internet: it would simply slow its > performance and make it more vulnerable to attack. ” > > In his response, Prince also asserted: >> >> “A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger >> it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor >> and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of >> speech a site may contain... There are lots of things on the web I >> find personally distasteful. I have political beliefs, but I don't >> believe those beliefs should color what is and is not allowed to flow >> over the network. As we have blogged about before, we often find >> ourselves on opposite sides of political conflicts. >> Fundamentally, we are consistent in the fact that our political >> beliefs will not color who we allow to be fast and safe on the web. ” > > > In June 2010, in the context of the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law > Project, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a strict view of the “expert > advice and assistance” clause of U.S. counter-terrorism laws, making > even nonviolent advocacy potentially an illicit form of material > support if it is carried out in conjunction with a proscribed > terrorist organization. The case had specifically centered on a group > of American civil rights activists who advertised their mission as > helping such groups “find peaceful ways to achieve [their] goals.” > > It is extremely difficult to reconcile the logical paradox that it is > currently illegal to give pro-bono assistance to a terrorist group in > order for them to adopt politics instead of violence, but it is > perfectly legal for CloudFlare to commercially profit from a terrorist > group by assisting them to communicate securely with recruits and to > publicly disseminate recordings of mass murder. Indeed, CloudFlare CEO > Matthew Prince has been adamant in his declarations that “ CloudFlare > abides by all applicable laws in the countries in which we operate and > we firmly support the due process of law.” Prince continues to insist, > “ We have never received a request to terminate the site in question > from any law enforcement authority, let alone a valid order from a > court.” > > In deference to CloudFlare, it is possible that the company has > received a formal request from law enforcement to continue providing > its services to such an illicit online forum. Yet, even as one who > has repeatedly advocated leaving jihadi forums online in order to > study those who use them, this possibility gives me pause for > reflection. If so, there must be a careful assessment of the > potential negative policy impacts of leaving ISIS recruitment > platforms online and unmolested in light of the recognition that > Western security services are abjectly failing to track, identify, and > stop all of those who are using these sites. If so, there must be a > careful assessment of the potential negative policy impacts of leaving > ISIS recruitment platforms online and unmolested in light of the > recognition that Western security services are abjectly failing to > track, identify, and stop all of those who are using these sites. > Testimony of Evan F. Kohlmann with Laith Alkhouri and Alexandra Kassirer Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade "The Evolution of Terrorist Propaganda: The Paris Attack and Social Media" [2]http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-F A18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf -- [3]Twitter | [4]LinkedIn | [5]GitHub | [6]TravisBiehn.com | [7]Google Plus References 1. mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net 2. http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf 3. https://twitter.com/tbiehn 4. http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn 5. http://github.com/tbiehn 6. http://www.travisbiehn.com/ 7. https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn