Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

[John Levine via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

It appears that William Herrin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> said:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:57 AM Andrew Kirch <trelane () trelane net> 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/nanog () lists nanog org/message/QGOVMLWJ36MZ3V5PZAZK3DH3PQKBRN5W/