Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eastdakota 1059 days ago
These threads amuse me.

If adamgamble's speculation were the case, I'd go to jail for things I'd have illegally signed in our SEC disclosures attesting to the sources of our revenue and any government contracts. Suffice it to say, I like not being in jail. It's really, really hard for public companies to be part of some grand conspiracy for so many different reasons. So… once we went public I kind of thought this silly speculation would end. But guess not.

Beyond that, if you think about it, it's a way better business to run Cloudflare and serve the world than serve some US intelligence entity. That's just per se true. So if that's the case why would we ever do anything that would remotely compromise the trust necessary to, you know, be Cloudflare?

Lastly, here's a funny story. Early in our history one of our investors suggested that we talk to In-Q-Tel. Here's how naive Michelle and I were: we had no idea it was the CIA's venture capital arm. So we showed up in their office on Sand Hill Road. It was weirdly austere compared with other VCs we'd visited. And lots of security cameras. The partner at some point came out and greeted us. As he was walking us back he looked back right before we crossed the threshold back to the inner offices, "You're both American citizens, right?"

"No," Michelle said. "I'm Canadian."

"Oh." the VC said. Then you can't come back here.”

"I'm not going back there without her," I said.

"Ok, well, I guess we'll have to do the meeting in the reception area," decided the In-Q-Tel VC.

We had a very cordial meeting and then left. As we were driving away Michelle said, "Those guys were weird." And that was the end of that. Never talked to In-Q-Tel again.

But maybe it's the Canadian equivalent of the CIA/FBI/NSA we're beholden to??! ;-)

6 comments

> So… once we went public I kind of thought this silly speculation would end. But guess not.

In fairness, there are quite a number of public companies that turned out to be operating partially as fronts for spying agencies (AT&T is the shining example here). So simply being a public company could not be expected to serve as some kind of proof of independence.

> I'd go to jail for things I'd have illegally signed in our SEC disclosures attesting to the sources of our revenue and any government contracts

CIA/FBI/NSA agreements include immunity from prosecution in the US at least. Your problem would be in foreign jurisdictions only.

Immunity from prosecution seems like a marvellous way to destroy rule of law. Crazy that that and royal^H^H^H^H^H presidential pardons exist. Recipe for corruption of the state and then the justice system.
As the purpose of Presidential pardons is to provide the opportunity to right significant miscarriages of justice in system that is almost impossible to get perfect, and that is the way they were typically used, it does not seem crazy that they exist.

What IS crazy is that they exist with very little consideration of a corrupt POTUS, judiciary, and/or congress. Seems the writings of the founders did worry about that significantly in later years, but evidently not in time to enshrine many guardrails in the US Constitution, not even a clear prohibition against self-pardon. Seems such a thing was considered so obviously wrong and corrupt that it didn't need to be mentioned. so here we are two and a half centuries later with people arguing that it should be possible.

> it does not seem crazy that they exist.

I think that it does seem crazy that they exist. To give a single politician the power to simply override our justice system is dangerous and crazy. If that's really necessary in order to ovoid miscarriages of justice, then we need to fix the real problem, not introduce a new one.

Why is the pardon ability a problem? Because it's the judgement not just of one person, but of a person who is a political animal. There is no way that power will be used in a way that is impartial, and there is no single person who is so wise that they should be entrusted with such decisions. That it's a politician making the decisions all but guarantees that the decisions will be made out of political interest, not some interest in actual justice.

All the pardon power does is to increase the potential for corruption.

> It's really, really hard for public companies to be part of some grand conspiracy for so many different reasons.

As difficult as it was to keep PRISM and the many other overt and covert arrangements (public, private but leaked, and private but not yet leaked) between backbones, carriers, CDNs, hosting providers, ISPs, etc., and the agencies leveraging them, out of each firm's public filings?

Because evidence is it's not difficult at all, considering the whole of the 30 years since the Internet went commercial.

Hi, kind of hijacking this conversation but as Cloudflare is unfortunately routing the majority of websites I visit I have to ask this:

Can you guarantee my Firefox browser will keep on working on 'the open internet' now Chrome moves towards "Web Environment Integrity" and Safari towards "Private Access Tokens" and Cloudflare is supporting and implementing such technologies on scale?

I intent to not participate in these DRM APIs with my Firefox browser and would like to keep browsing the internet.

How could Cloudflare guarantee websites dont implement WEI in their codebase. that makes no sense
"If you’re a Cloudflare customer:You don’t have to do anything! Cloudflare will automatically ask for and utilize Private Access Tokens"

https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-captchas-on-iphones-...

"will you be supporting WEI and PAT in your captcha/ddos protection services" is a VERY different question to "can you guarantee my Firefox browser will continue to work on the open web"
Heh, he posted the GP comment and went to bed. Good luck getting a response.
I haven't been able to visit a site with Cloudflare's bot protection for over a year because it goes into an infinite loop on Firefox.
That usually happens when I'm faking my user agent to use the most popular (windows + Chrome). Once I go back to the default (Linux + Firefox) then CloudFlare seems to allow it.
what a truly ridiculous question to ask the ceo of cloudflare.
Your response really shows a disconnect with the user and what was said

Not many users who encounter your service while trying to connect to a website will know _anything_ about your company, let alone knows its public or read disclosures.

Cloudflare has a public perception and sentiment problem and dismissing it as you have will lead to an inevitably negative outcome.

Ha thanks for the reply, was mostly just joking didn't expect a reply from Matthew directly :). I appreciate that you're active on HN though!