Re: Anonymous vs Cloudflare

From: S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:47:05 -0800

Hi Ish,
At 22:02 17-11-2015, Ish Sookun wrote:
>I would agree that a "takedown notice" is a more proper way in this
>context and it would ensure who is taking responsility and assuring
>investigation is further carried.
>
>It reminds me of Section 18(m) of the ICT Act 2001 of Mauritius in
>which the ICT Authority shall "take steps to regulate or curtail
>harmful and illegal content on the Internet and other information
>and communication services".
>
>Though the word "harmful" is vague, the word "illegal" would
>encompass anything that violates the laws of Mauritius. I would not
>see the ICT Authority endorsing the acts of Anonymous as their
>techniques would be deemed as illegal.

Cloudflare can investigate what was reported in the article.

There is a "full disclosure" notice at the end of the article. Have
you ever seen that in a local article?

There are several questions; one of them is about censorship. Is it
censorship if a company removes a web site because the company
disagrees with the content of the web site?

If I consider some content as "harmful", would I be able to convince
a court about that?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Wed Nov 18 2015 - 08:47:30 PST