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

Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 225 posts

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#141

Post by throw0101d »

ACCount37 wrote: post #102
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Isn't that exactly what Cloudflare is, in part? They happily block "malicious" traffic

Part of the reason I don't like Cloudflare. Their "black hole the entire country" function is a function no company should provide.

> Their "black hole the entire country" function is a function no company should provide.

If I can have that feature with an on-prem firewall or load balancer, why can't I ask the in-cloud equivalent to also have it?

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#142

Post by vkou »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #139
pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies…

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described).

All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to keep foreign interference out of your country.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#143

Post by Ylpertnodi »

radiator wrote: post #98
ACCount37 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This boneheaded idea of "just block the Bad Countries from our Good Web" needs to die a miserable death. Countries like Russia or China spend billions on controlling the flow of information on their own land. Countries like Iran go out of their way to blackhole the traffic whenever any disruptions or political violence happens in the country, and for every Nepal, where this backfired terribly, there's a dozen cases o…

I find the notion that propagandists only control the flow of information in countries like Russia, China, Iran - but they don't in the West - misguided at best.

I think that is the point.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#144

Post by pfortuny »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #139
pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies…

Mmmmhhhhh… There is the problem of the middleman (the telcos): you are using them for communication.

I guess if the USPS/Fedex knew for a fact (such as your website request) that you were communicating CP, the. they should do something about it?

This is an honest question.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#145

Post by pfortuny »

iamnothere wrote: post #126
pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

> I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country. This has more or le…

Well, yes. But then again, those beginners gave us unauthenticated TCP…

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#146

Post by exasperaited »

jalk wrote: post #119
exasperaited wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it. So by implication you're actually completely fine with other countries pursuing their own objectives for businesses that choose to trade in their country. Because you cannot, possibly, in 2025, be making an argument that the USA's interpretation of the way of things is unimpeachable. That would be absurd an…

You are missing the point. Blocking a CDN providers IP range, means blocking all the websites using the CDN - not just the nazi-poster.com.

This is quite close to the whole Nazi bar analogy isn't it?

You run a bar. You let anyone in, and some of your customers are a bit edgy.

But one day, Nazis start using your bar for their regular gathering and you don't kick them out.

Congratulations: now you have a Nazi bar.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#147

Post by Ajedi32 »

vkou wrote: post #142
Ajedi32 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies…

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described). All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to kee…

True, but I would still frame that as a restriction on your own citizen's freedom to buy services from foreign countries. Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#148

Post by [deleted] »

ACCount37 wrote: post #38

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to exist, it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests, and becomes a tool of overreach and abuse. We've seen that happen over and over again. If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#149

Post by secretmark »

pjc50 wrote: post #85
ACCount37 wrote: post #38

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to exist, it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests, and becomes a tool of overreach and abuse. We've seen that happen over and over again. If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

Techno-libertarianism is indeed the water we swim in. I enjoyed this academic-ish book on the topic that interrogates its positions. It shows how radical some of them are https://www.upress.umn.edu/9781517918149/cyberlibertarianism...

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#150

Post by themafia »

pfortuny wrote: post #145
iamnothere wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply because it's hosted in a different country. This has more or le…

Well, yes. But then again, those beginners gave us unauthenticated TCP…

"Gave" is the key word. You got TCP for free. There were other competing network protocols. You might ask, why didn't those get used instead?
Post reply on HN