Chrome should starting warning users if Cloudflare is used to protect a website, due to the risk of MITM.
How do you think any CDN works?
CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
31–40 of 145 posts
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#32Is there a point to a company as large as Cloudflare even having a warrant canary? Half the internet goes through their servers. Of course the US government had or has hooks in them for something or other.
And, it's not like there are really alternatives. So what if they were served a warrant? What are they, and the people, going to do about it?
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how pedantic you could legally get with that. Cloudflare has never been compelled to give up information to an agency called AAA. Cloudflare has never been compelled to give up information to an agency called AAB. ...etc.
Suuuuper pedantic. For instance, 2 and 3 narrowly specify just law enforcement agencies, of which the CIA and NSA are not.
Buuuut, since 703 allows law enforcement agencies to harvest data captured by intelligence agencies any statement that doesn't specifically exclude those intelligence agencies is essentially meaningless.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a precedent for compelling speech, even with something like an NSL?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#:~:text=Pet... .
Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech#:~:text=Pet... .
Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
Probably the giant “United States” section with dozens of examples?
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
Probably the giant “United States” section with dozens of examples?
But they linked a specific section, and it wasn't the United States section.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#37Chrome should starting warning users if Cloudflare is used to protect a website, due to the risk of MITM.
The biggest MITMer should complain about another service being an MITM? How much has Google now routed to go through themselves or be checked by them prior to serving your destination? Bear in mind Google doesn't have a warrant canary because it is served literally hundreds or thousands of warrants per year, to the tune it's just called a transparency report to count them.
Okay, Firefox should start warning users.
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#38Chrome should starting warning users if Cloudflare is used to protect a website, due to the risk of MITM.
How do you think any CDN works?
By MITMing traffic between you and the host. Maybe Firefox should display a warning when it detects intermediaries that could have decrypted the traffic between the host and you?
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#39What action do I need to take in response? Please advise.
I'm not an expert, but my course of action is to stop using cloudflare. I never used them for whatever that other thing they do is, but I switched my upstream DNS to quad9 (9.9.9.9).
Re: CloudFlare’s last Warrant Canary was published over a year ago
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
Probably the giant “United States” section with dozens of examples?
I do not think that the United States section of that article is valid. It seems to equate speech with communication.
It does not feel right to call an IRS tax return "speech".