Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gruez 639 days ago
How is this different than say, ticketmaster charging money to not get "blocked" from a venue (ie. a ticket)?
2 comments

It isn't. Ticketmaster is also a way to dominant middleman with way too much influence in the sector.
"cloudflare is engaging in monopolistic behavior" would be the saner take here, but the OP was specifically accusing cloudflare of being a "protection racket". Ticketmaster might be engaging in illegal monopolistic behavior in the ticket space, but nobody seriously thinks they're engaging in a "protection racket" over access to venues.
Because those websites cloudflare is performing racketeering-as-a-service for are open to the public.
Cloudflare isn't unilaterally inserting themselves between the website and you. They're contracted by the website owner to provide website security, just like how ticketmaster is contracted by the venue owner to provide ticketing. I don't see what the difference is.
"Security" in the real world doesn't get to profile people. Profiling is Cloudflare's entire business model.
What do you think club bouncers are doing?
>"Security" in the real world doesn't get to profile people

1. yes they do. have you ever been to vegas? there's cameras and facial recognition everywhere. outside of vegas, some bars and clubs also use ID scanning systems to enforce blacklists, and in most cases that system is outsourced to an external vendor. finally, ticketmaster requires an account to use, and to create an account you need to provide them your billing information. that's arguably more intrusive than whatever cloudflare is doing, which is at least pseudonymous.

2. "profiling people" might be objectionable for other reasons, but it's not a relevant factor in whether something is a "protection" racket or not. There's plenty of reasons to hate cloudflare, but it's laughable to describe them as a criminal enterprise.

1. A blacklist isn't profiling. Known problem causing entities is entirely different than 'he looks suspicious', because the latter is often... Misused (to be polite).

2. Of course it is relevant. Because the more false positives they have the more money they can extort. They have negative incentive for their system to work properly.

P.S. ticketmaster is absolutely criminal, too.

>2. Of course it is relevant. Because the more false positives they have the more money they can extort. They have negative incentive for their system to work properly.

What are the "false positives" in this context? It's specifically for blocking bots, and enrollment into the program to get unblocked is designed for bot owners. It's obviously not designed to extract money from regular users. I doubt there's even a straightforward way for regular users to pay to get unblocked via this channel. As the people who are running blocks and are blocked, I don't see what the issue is. Isn't it working as intended by definition?

> are open to the public

Most websites aren't "open to the public". Most use firewalls, configure rules, etc that already block certain accesses. It's open to selected groups, just maybe including 1s you're allowed to be a part of.