Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

[Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

People don't want to resolve issues. They want to argue and be correct.



-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mu via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>
To: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>, "Mu" <mu () zuqq me>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:51:33 PM
Subject: Re: Amazon AWS cloudfront WAF block

On Thursday, May 29th, 2025 at 3:35 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
> >
> > 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/

Respectfully, is anyone here an actual lawyer giving legal advice?

If not, can we maybe just suggest that everyone consults with their own lawyers about what actions they do or do not 
want to take?

Obviously the original comment about sending a legal letter was made out of frustration because reaching an actual 
human at some of these megacorps is often like pulling teeth. I don't blame them for being frustrated. With that said, 
I cannot fathom how citing some cases and section 230 will help the original poster get a hold of someone at Amazon 
and/or resolve their issue.

-mu
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/WQOPS73CIQFM725J4N3BW44T6KCQPQ72/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/ZAVRAFDDCWBYIRGFS4ZMIEL6UIYGKR6F/