Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

[William Herrin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:34 PM John Levine via NANOG
<nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> 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
> >
> > 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.

Hi John,

That is correct as far as it goes. However, if I *tell you* that
you're hurting me and your response is, "I don't believe you and I
can't be bothered to check," you are acting in bad faith. That doesn't
necessarily make it unlawful, but any protections you had based on
"good faith" are out the window. That's how Cox got smacked around in
their piracy lawsuit: they reacted to notification in bad faith.

Remember, the whole argument I made hinges on the premise that OP
believes that if he could just talk to a human being responsible for
the blocking activity and make his case, that human being, upon
checking and confirming his presented facts, would agree with him. If
that doesn't hold, then neither does my argument.

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/W6DGDOOJOWNRRCVZX55BGB5G3OJB2NTL/