[gruez]

>I was using it to show the ridiculousness of blaming a user for the shortcomings of cloudflare.

That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.

[johnklos]

Does "But if you're going out of your way to look suspicious" advance the conversation?

[gruez]

It advances the conversation because it refutes the argument that "It's not the users fault" brought up a few comments ago, by using the balaclavas in bank analogy.

[ghjfrdghibt]

It refutes nothing, it attempts to place the blame for cloudflare incompetence at the feet of a user who has done nothing wrong.

[gruez]

Replied in the other comment. In short: if someone wears a balaclava to a bank, would you say that person also "has done nothing wrong"?

[ghjfrdghibt]

In short, just answering this question (which as stated in the other comment is not the issue), yes that person has t done anything wrong. There is no offence for wearing hats in banks.

[gruez]

>There is no offence for wearing hats in banks.

But banks aren't mandated to admit you either. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean a private establishment has to let you in. When it comes to denying entry, banks are relatively tame. Some establishments go beyond that, by denying entry unless you wear formal clothing, or presenting proof of identity.

[ghjfrdghibt]

[flagged]

[gruez]

[flagged]

[ghjfrdghibt]

[flagged]

[gruez]

[flagged]

[ghjfrdghibt]

[flagged]

[gruez]

[flagged]