This analogy is absurd. Steel and rubber can't break laws either, but police regularly seize guns and vehicles used for committing crimes. Most developed countries also have some sort of sanctions regime that bars its citizens from transacting with certain entities. In most cases such sanctions don't even require a court order, the executive branch can usually unilaterally add entities to sanction lists.
Your counter analogy is also a bit cherry picked. Guns and vehicles used for committing crimes are seized, but the vehicle makers and gunsmiths are not ordered to go substantially out of their way to prevent criminals from using them, although they do stamp serial numbers. Also, ore and parts suppliers are not required to ensure that the buyers of their material comply with all legalities with the use of their materials. There’s a line of absurdity that this crosses
Physical goods aren’t the right analogy. Cloudflare provides services, not goods, which means Cloudflare is actively involved in the illegal activity.
There’s ample precedent for requiring companies to stop serving known criminals, and for requiring them to do some basic checks to try to avoid doing it in the first place. Just look at all the trouble that state-legal-but-federally-illegal marijuana retailers have with the financial system.
There are services where this is not expected. The post office delivers the mail regardless. But I don’t see why Cloudflare would be one of those universal services.
This seems like a typical tech company thing where they act like they have an inherent right to scale. If they actually checked what their services were being used for then they could easily spot this stuff and shut it down, but that costs money and takes time.
There actually had been some attempts to make smart guns mandatory while not completely working out all of their "kinks" yet. But to your point they actually have attempted this, to some degree. At first they were thinking only to prevent police from having their weapons used against them, but they had attempted to expand the scope. Although after the cops didn't want it either and the push for them seems to have waned.
>Your counter analogy is also a bit cherry picked. Guns and vehicles used for committing crimes are seized, but the vehicle makers and gunsmiths are not ordered to go substantially out of their way to prevent criminals from using them, although they do stamp serial numbers.
Internet companies aren't being asked to proactively block piracy sites either. They're asked to block IP addresses associated with known piracy sites, as determined by the courts.
>Also, ore and parts suppliers are not required to ensure that the buyers of their material comply with all legalities with the use of their materials. There’s a line of absurdity that this crosses
...only because the government aren't nervous about "ores and parts" getting in the hands of criminal or rival states. For many other items, suppliers are required to seek export licenses for certain goods[1], which is arguably an equal or higher bar than what you're describing. Such items aren't limited to stuff like explosives or munitions, it also includes benign stuff like certain metal alloys, and semiconductors. Also, Banks and other financial institutions are required to proactively look for sanctions evasion activity.
Police seizures would still exist without civil forfeiture. Moreover, in this case, unlike civil forfeiture, there's actually a court order backing the action.
