|
|
|
|
|
|
by debugnik
15 days ago
|
|
|
Bullshit, that sentence just enables LaLiga and Telefonica to interfere with hosts like Cloudflare, which I claim is an excessive measure before a trial against them. It does not claim that Cloudflare is breaking the law, and Ctrl+F "Cloudflare" just shows one hit about Encrypted Client Hello. Here's the list of companies that actually were sued here, to let them block: > 1.Vodafone España, S.A.U. 2. Vodafone ONO, S.A.U. 3. MASORANGE Orange Espagne, S.A.U. 4. DIGI SPAIN TELECOM, S.L.U. 5. TELEFÓNICA ESPAÑA, S.A.U. 6. TELEFÓNICA MÓVILES ESPAÑA,S.A.U. I apologize if this sounds rude, but it just sounds like you aren't familiar with the case or the subject matter at all, please perform some research if you want to make claims about what ought to be. And now more seriously, I've got a right to think the court's decision is wrong even if it's legal, get over it. |
|
|
I just feel my personal opinions on the subject matter almost zero, especially since I'm not involved in the dispute, nor a citizen of either country. If you are american you are somewhat compelled, but I think that jurisdictionally, they have sovereignity, which is much harder to deny. Like even if you think the case itself and the sentence are wrong, ok, I get it. But I think we should compartimentalize and respect the venue, I don't think even cloudflare is arguing against the venue, claiming somehow that the US courts are proper for the case. But I could be wrong.
> It does not claim that Cloudflare is breaking the law
Right, I read that there was no trial or sentence at all. The linked trial was not claimed against Cloudflare at all, but the sentence does compel CloudFlare and refers to other several summons for CloudFlare (I read somewhere that it totals more than 100).
Here's a recent story I found on the CEO being personally sued on criminal charges:
>https://www.advanced-television.com/2026/03/04/spain-court-s...
Can't speak a lot on this specific case, but I personally wouldn't want to step into a country that sues me criminally. This is somewhat permissible for CloudFlare since it is a security company, so it probably isn't the first time they have had such an issue. But still, this is definitely not nothing.
What seems correct is that Cloudflare itself has not yet been the defendant of a civil suit for damages yet. But to be fair, they went straight for criminal charges, which to my estimation is way more decisive (and appropriate).
EDIT: Cloudflare is a defendant along with the CEO. With some nuances on terminology due to the common/civil, but I believe defendant is an accurate translation of "investigado"