Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#71

Post by johnnyanmac »

ars wrote: post #62
knodi123 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but they could have. still could. and you might not even know. and the fact that one of our political teams has been fighting SO HARD against net neutrality is a big red flag. protections are important even if someone's not actively and noticeably abusing people right this minute.

There's been exactly zero problems in 20 years (the idea was introduced in 2003), yet somehow "still could. and you might not even know.". No one is fighting "so hard" this is a dead topic. T-Mobile offers to zero rate YouTube if you let them throttle it - it's your choice. Would that be legal under Net Nutrality? Would they have to get permission from YouTube?

>No one is fighting "so hard" this is a dead topic.

AI was a pretty dead topic after the 80's boom as well. Hell, we can argue VR is still a "dead" topic, but we know sometime in our (millenial+) lifetime that we're going to have major landmark cases over VR/AR tech.

I'd rather patch loopholes before they get abused at this point.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#73

Post by franga2000 »

What I don't get is how DNS blocking and other DPI is legal while IP blocking isn't. Sure, you can make and argument that the ISP-provided DNS is a service they provide so you can compel them to not resolve certain addresses, but inspecting and modifying other DNS packets on the network seems no different to inspecting and modifying HTTP packets to inject crap or throttle streaming - the exact things net neutrality was meant to protect against.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#74

Post by benjymo »

eastdakota wrote: post #55

The association of IPs to individuals and particular services is the original sin of the Internet. At Cloudflare, we’re working to fix that sin. That doesn’t mean governments don’t have the right to regulate content on networks in their boarders: they absolutely do so long as they follow principles of Rule of Law. But blocking on an IP can never be transparent — and therefore violates the Rule of Law — and will alway…

I wasn't able to npm install something because Cloudflare decided the IP I was currently assigned has to solve a captcha before downloading node packages.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#75

Post by Cullinet »

gerdesj wrote: post #27
tuetuopay wrote: post #3

> When the ISPs discovered that the IP addresses belonged to Cloudflare, arms were thrown up in despair. The level of desperation the ISP’s engineers have felt in front of such incompetence must have been through the roof. I am getting tired of our politics here in europe: tech literate people in governments are put to work on surveilance stuff, never for actual policymaking. The shit show continues.

Surely they should have contacted Cloudflare and asked them to sort out the issue with their network ... CF will probably retort {common carrier, we are American and you are not etc}. Austrian policy makers get upset and ... THIS NONSENSE IS STILL NOT SORTED. The internets are somewhat broken, quite badly. We all allow ourselves to end up in a series of virtual walled off silos - Facebook, Twitter etc, run by some pr…

Re: numberplates

Foreign licensed vehicles can operate and drive in the UK for up to 30 days without applying to the DVLA (DMV) for UK registration.

However the UK government has never subscribed to any of the available EU crime and general population administration data sources which has always left the UK vulnerable to overseas criminal activities concentrating here because there's obviously no reciprocating return of information to the continental authorities either and so the UK has become the best place to let the law slip if you're up to no good in Europe.

Edit: slip not slop

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#76

Post by toyg »

franga2000 wrote: post #73

What I don't get is how DNS blocking and other DPI is legal while IP blocking isn't. Sure, you can make and argument that the ISP-provided DNS is a service they provide so you can compel them to not resolve certain addresses, but inspecting and modifying other DNS packets on the network seems no different to inspecting and modifying HTTP packets to inject crap or throttle streaming - the exact things net neutrality w…

Read the article or the sentence - the difference with DNS is that it's not as likely to result in blocking innocent third-parties. Services don't typically share DNS names, whereas IPs are typically shared or reused constantly.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#77

Post by [deleted] »

redox99 wrote: post #69
badsectoracula wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The job if the engineer who notices this is to raise it to their boss and legal counsel... ...shouldn't the legal department be involved way before the issue reaches the engineer? Why should the engineer ever care about it in the first place? Chances are these orders do not come directly to their email.

> shouldn't the legal department be involved way before the issue reaches the engineer? Possibly, but the legal department might not know what cloudflare is or the implications until the engineers explain it.

[deleted]

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#78

Post by MichaelZuo »

redox99 wrote: post #69
badsectoracula wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The job if the engineer who notices this is to raise it to their boss and legal counsel... ...shouldn't the legal department be involved way before the issue reaches the engineer? Why should the engineer ever care about it in the first place? Chances are these orders do not come directly to their email.

> shouldn't the legal department be involved way before the issue reaches the engineer? Possibly, but the legal department might not know what cloudflare is or the implications until the engineers explain it.

That seems like an extremely unlikely scenario for the legal department of an ISP in 2023.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#79

Post by franga2000 »

toyg wrote: post #76
franga2000 wrote: post #73

What I don't get is how DNS blocking and other DPI is legal while IP blocking isn't. Sure, you can make and argument that the ISP-provided DNS is a service they provide so you can compel them to not resolve certain addresses, but inspecting and modifying other DNS packets on the network seems no different to inspecting and modifying HTTP packets to inject crap or throttle streaming - the exact things net neutrality w…

Read the article or the sentence - the difference with DNS is that it's not as likely to result in blocking innocent third-parties. Services don't typically share DNS names, whereas IPs are typically shared or reused constantly.

I did, but that still doesn't explain how that relates to net neutrality. I guess the court might have used the likelihood of false positives as the factor that decides whether net neutrality or copyright law pervails in a given situation, but this isn't mentioned in the article.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#80

Post by toyg »

franga2000 wrote: post #79
toyg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article or the sentence - the difference with DNS is that it's not as likely to result in blocking innocent third-parties. Services don't typically share DNS names, whereas IPs are typically shared or reused constantly.

I did, but that still doesn't explain how that relates to net neutrality. I guess the court might have used the likelihood of false positives as the factor that decides whether net neutrality or copyright law pervails in a given situation, but this isn't mentioned in the article.

I think it makes more sense if you consider the Directive is about "universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and service", rather than "net neutrality" (which is a very ISP-oriented term).
Post reply on HN