> > I cannot fathom how citing some cases and section 230 will help the > original poster get a hold of someone at Amazon and/or resolve their issue.
It won't, no. But not much else will either. AWS default WAF lists are notoriously bad. They often include things they shouldn't. If you are an AWS customer they'll tell you to make your own edits to fix these problems. If you aren't (as in the OP's case ), they won't even really talk to you, as the OP experienced. It's of course exceptionally frustrating when you're in the OP's shoes with this stuff, but this is the unfortunate reality when people chose to use ass products like this. On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 3:52 PM Mu via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, May 29th, 2025 at 3:35 PM, John Levine via NANOG < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > It appears that William Herrin via NANOG [email protected] said: > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:57 AM Andrew Kirch [email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > > (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to > > > > or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be > > > > obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, > > > > or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is > > > > constitutionally protected > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > The key phrase here is "taken in good faith." After I've notified you > > > of an error, your action stops being good faith. > > > > > > Uh, no. I have no duty to believe what you claim. > > > > Having looked at a lot of case law I can tell you that the only case > where a > > court did not find good faith was a strange one where one anti-malware > service > > listed another (for what looked like good reasons) and a court assumed > that > > since they were direct competitors it wasn't good faith. Other than > that, if I > > think your traffic is objectionable, I can reject it. > > > > See > https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/this-case-keeps-wrecking-internet-law-enigma-v-malwarebytes.htm > > > > In practice, threatening to sue Amazon is a dumb thing to do because > they have > > far more lawyers and experience and money than you do. This is obviously > a > > screwup and figuring out who to ask nicely is far more likely to work > than > > sending threats you can't actually carry out. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > PS: Wasn't the original question from someone in South Africa? I have no > idea > > what their law is like, or if Amazon even has enough presence there to > sue. > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QGOVMLWJ36MZ3V5PZAZK3DH3PQKBRN5W/ > > Respectfully, is anyone here an actual lawyer giving legal advice? > > If not, can we maybe just suggest that everyone consults with their own > lawyers about what actions they do or do not want to take? > > Obviously the original comment about sending a legal letter was made out > of frustration because reaching an actual human at some of these megacorps > is often like pulling teeth. I don't blame them for being frustrated. With > that said, I cannot fathom how citing some cases and section 230 will help > the original poster get a hold of someone at Amazon and/or resolve their > issue. > > -mu > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/WQOPS73CIQFM725J4N3BW44T6KCQPQ72/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SD7KRQCPJYEQWDT7BJSAN2UE7FDEA3QQ/
