Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

["Eric C. Miller via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Andrew,

I respect everyone's right to block my traffic. It's mere courtesy for them to at least say that so we can relay that 
insensitivity to our customers. PR nightmares are bad regardless of who starts them. As others have shared in my 
absence, I only desire that companies would explain why we're being blocked so we can knock the bad actors off our 
network. In the case of Amazon, Target, Disney, Netflix, Chase, BoA, and others - they go mum when you ask what threat 
service they are using to drop you. When I approach the threat list companies, we're either ignored or given the 
runaround. It seems that these companies don't have a very good ISP relations program.

Lawsuits on the matter are dumb - it's akin to my kids fighting over Legos or who pushed who first. It just seems that 
lawyers can find the ear of someone that will make a constructive conversation happen. I'm not an attorney, so maybe I 
overstepped with the term "demand letter," but "our guy" has sent something to "their guy" that got the conversation 
going that ended in a positive resolution.

The internet community needs a more amicable method of communicating these issues or the only ISPs surviving will be 
the monster sized networks capable of navigating the fog. All I want is for the accuser (threat detector) to tell me 
how to determine the bad actor on my network so I can throw them off for an AUP violation.


Eric

________________________________
From: William Herrin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 3:54 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>; William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Subject: Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

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/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/QZROXRIVCAD56TJEHDRAB5BKOREHR3BE/