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 <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"
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-...
-- Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>