Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

[Andrew Kirch via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Sigh.  Let's try this again.  I don't have to accept your traffic.  Amazon
doesn't have to accept your traffic.  No one has to accept your traffic.  I
can deny your traffic for any lawful reason even if that traffic might be
otherwise constitutionally protected.

I linked to the law, but I guess I'll have to paste it.  Please take the
time to read it.  "Otherwise objectionable" means pretty much whatever AWS
wants  it to mean.  I object to your traffic on my network, therefore I'm
not carrying it.

They have no case.  Period end of story.  Their lawsuit is a SLAPP suit,
and their threat is barratry.

In the past we used to bake cakes to make this point.
https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/28/ipv6_peering_squabbles/
qu'ils mangent la brioche!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230


(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive
material
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230>
 shall be held liable on account of—
(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;
or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content
providers
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-10252844-1237841279&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230>
 or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in
paragraph (1).[1] <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#fn002009>
Andrew

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 1:44 PM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 7:07 PM Andrew Kirch via NANOG
> <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > Please have your lawyers review the Spamhaus lawsuit, and other state and
> > federal lawsuits filed by spammers against DNSBL operators (like me!)
> > before you file a SLAPP suit.  We always win.  We win so much it's
> getting
> > boring.
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Maybe I misunderstood Eric, but I thought his "threat," if you want to
> call it that, was to sue WAF implementers like AWS for tortious
> interference rather than list publishers like IP Quality Score. The
> legal proposition is that an AWS customer has little or no control
> over what AWS does with the IP blocking information. If they want to
> do business with me and I want to do business with them but AWS steps
> in the middle, that's potentially tortious interference. And let's
> face it: AWS is a large enough organization you're not just playing
> whack-a-mole.
>
> Worth noting that Spamhaus et. al. escaped their lawsuits because they
> publish information. They don't block anybody. The consumers of their
> information (like AWS) do the blocking.
>
> Also worth noting that Eric's plan wasn't to sue pers se, it was to
> send demand letters. There's an implicit assumption that if he could
> just talk to a responsible person, they'd agree with him and fix the
> problem. Demand letters to the attorney of record are kind of a last
> ditch mechanism to cut through an organization's hierarchy and talk to
> the engineer who can actually solve your problem. Because whoever you
> are and however well insulated you are from the tech support front
> door, the company lawyers have access to you.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill () herrin us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/RTECVUEAVVZHTNXRG5Y5MZMWYGOOXHVG/