On 09/07/2016 10:37 AM, Tom wrote:
> Cloudflare caches content so they can serve it. Pretty standard job > like Akamai or Amazon do as well. And why would they "hand over website > content" to some agency? It's public. Hey! Youre right! Akmai and Amazon do that too, and it's NOT just 'caching pages' Cloudflare DNS's the sites they protect, and the other ones you mentioned aren't noted for running honeypots for the feds including ISIS chat rooms. To turn over all the dataz on potential 'terrorists' like they do with US activists. Cloudflare has a very public known relationship with the DHS... DIRECTLY. House tesitmony on that ISIS 'thing': > > Links to this video were first posted on ISIS’ main online chat > forum, alplatformmedia.com and, naturally, the question that follows > from this analysis is: How is ISIS able to operate its own > offi-cial .com social media platform on the Internet in order to > disseminate its media? > > And the answer to that question is another billion-dollar San > Francisco-based company called CloudFlare, which aims to shield Web > sites from being targeted by spammers, cyber criminals and denial of > service attacks. CloudFlare in essence serves as a gatekeeper to > control the flow of unwanted visitors to a given site. It has > advanced detection fea-tures that thwart attempts by automated robots > to scrape data from and monitor these forums. In fact, two of ISIS’ > top three online chat forums, including alplatformmedia.com, are > currently guarded by CloudFlare. > > Without such protection, these sites would almost certainly succumb > to the same relentless online attacks that have completely collapsed > several major jihadi web forums in recent years. In 2013, after CloudFlare > was accused of providing protection to terrorist Web sites, the company > CEO insisted that, > > ‘‘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.’’ > > He also asserted, > > ‘‘A Web site 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.’’ > > It is extremely difficult to reconcile the logical paradox that it > is currently illegal under U.S. law to give pro bono assistance to > a terrorist group in order to convince 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 disseminate > prop-aganda which encourages mass murder. > > In fact, CloudFlare’s CEO has been adamant that, ‘‘CloudFlare abides > by all applicable laws in the countries in which we operate and we > firmly support the due process of law.’ http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Transcript-20150127.pdf And that "Due Law" means they have the go ahead from tthe HIGHEST PLACES in the DOJ to do so... A blanket go-ahead, and the exact same thing is being done to US hot-button issue activists It bores me that you don't give a fuck about any of this, but it's ABSOLUTELY within any version quoted of the list's charter and maybe if you don't care about it, or for it, you should simply shut the fuck up troll. Rr