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-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf