171–180 of 199 posts
"I had heard good things about them on here" No, you did not hear good things about the biggest man-in-the-middle of the internet on here, and you're about to learn the tough lesson others have: don't trust Cloudflare with sensitive accounts or data.
Who are you trusting with your sensitive accounts and data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, if anyone wants to argue that it’s “in the TOS” that sounds like a contract no normal person would sign and likely not enforceable (IANAL) if pushed. No “sane” person would say, “yeah, if you think I’m doing something wrong, just sell all my shit!”
It’s sickening. They are committing a massive crime here and getting away with it. It’s time somebody alerts the media and blow the whistle on Cloudflares abusive actions. I wonder how many customers domains Cloudflare stole/deleted who’s owner didn’t have the luxury of knowing the Hacker News publicity trick?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assure you, targeted persistent harassment is in fact not legal in most countries. With caveats for public figures and failing enforcement.
What do you mean by "most countries"? The only country that matters is the US.
Update: Just received an email from CF. -------------- Hello, With regard to your inquiry, we have restored the domain names in your account to active status. Please allow for normal propagation. You will need to re-add mnf90.com to your account in order to manage it. Our apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Kind Regards, Cloudflare Trust & Safety ------------ Not much info lol, but guess its fixed n…
If you live in the EU the article 15 of the GDPR grants you the right to ask about the details. Often companies reply that they don't need to answer because of ¨security¨ but this is not true. You can in detail ask about ALL personal data that was used as an input for this decision, information about the ¨automated decision-making¨ (algorithm), and all personal data that resulted out of this process. https://gdpr.eu/…
I know this sounds very cynical, but there's something funny about a company doing this automated trust and safety with zero recourse spiel while being entirely okay with hosting sites where people are bullied into suicide because we can't just deny service to technically legal websites as a pseudo public utility. Pick a lane.
Good point, but fraud and theft are different than being unpleasant or cruel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does a private corporation get to unilaterally decide something is fraud and seize someone's property? Is this what ownership is supposed to be like?
You never "own" a domain. You just rent it from a registrar, who had permission from ICANN to let you rent it. There is no "good" that you can take with you when you give a registrar money for a domain.
Ah, cant wait until you understand the nature of money itself ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does a private corporation get to unilaterally decide something is fraud and seize someone's property? Is this what ownership is supposed to be like?
You never "own" a domain. You just rent it from a registrar, who had permission from ICANN to let you rent it. There is no "good" that you can take with you when you give a registrar money for a domain.
Edit:- Then the problem comes from registry. So, along with being a registrar, that individual will need to become a registry recognized by ICANN
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which violates their registrar agreements: > Registered Name Holders must be able to transfer their domain name registrations between Registrars (Note that sections 3.7-3.9 do allow registrars to deny transfers, f.e. given "evidence of fraud", but given that they reinstated the domains I doubt they have evidence of fraud.) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-0...
But they ('re automated system or through mistake or whatever) thought they did have evidence of fraud right, so that's consistent?
The behaviour was wrong and concerning yes, but it seems internally consistent, all along the 'fraud' path.