zlacker

>>jgraha+(OP)
While Cloudflare appears to be doing things that are meant to help everyday people, I can't help but be suspicious. This is an organization that sticks with the "we don't host" bullshit line when web sites serve up Trojans which pretend to be Adobe Flash installers. While there's more subjectivity involved with dealing with hosting the content of spammers, there is zero subjectivity involved with clear and obvious phishing sites.

First, anyone with the tiniest modicum of common sense can tell that these pretend Flash sites are absolutely not in the slightest way legitimate content.

Second, providing services in any way, shape or form is, in fact, hosting. Providing DNS? It's hosting. Providing a cached version of the site? Hosting.

So if they want to be in the business of pretending to be not-hosting, then they have to stop providing services that without which web sites would cease to function. Are they now going to claim that they're not providing meaningful services to domains registered through them, and therefore they should not be responsible for people who are doing illegal things?

Probably.

>>johnkl+zv
So if Google accidentally caches random JS malware, they suddenly become at fault for "hosting" it?

>>judge2+gS
If someone points it out and they refuse to remove it and infect people who don't know better and trust Google, then the answer is "yes".

>>SamWhi+mb1
1) We can't remove content we don't host. Only the host can remove that content. 2) If you have located malicious content please do tell us about it -- cloudflare.com/abuse -- and once we confirm your report we can place a warning interstitial in front of that content and notify the host. The interstitial protects users in the interim while the host takes action to actually remove the content they are hosting.