Nice to see....
...a far less inflammatory stance on Cloudflare than Andrew's article.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/23/cloudflare_dmca_takedowns_pirate_bay_personal_data_8chan/
which was odd given that The Reg uses it.
Content delivery network CloudFlare says it has received 50 court orders in the first half of this year, more than double that clocked in the whole of 2014. The statistics, which do not include search warrants, were revealed in the web defender's latest transparency report show it received 22 court orders in the first half of …
Andrew's article is more correct. CloudFlare states that they won't take down sites until a court order demands it. My personal experience with them backs that up. That makes them a popular edge cache and anonymizer for online criminals. As others do, I occasionally post lists of CloudFlare's criminal customers to their Facebook page. CloudFlare was creepy enough to e-mail my wife multiple times, telling her that I should stop posting.
"CloudFlare states that they won't take down sites until a court order demands it"
And nor should they.
You'd be pissed if someone said you were a criminal (unproven in court) and your website was involved in this activity (unproven) and so taken down at the request of some random person in somewhere in the world.
Turned over our SSL keys or our customers SSL keys to anyone;
Installed any law enforcement software or equipment anywhere on our network;
Terminated a customer or taken down content due to political pressure,
Provided any law enforcement organization a feed of our customers' content transiting our network.
Does not say
Allowed Law Enforcement to install their own kit
Allowed Law Enforcement to grab a datafeed themselves.
It is all in how you read/understand the statements