I dont even know where to start with this, I have personal and direct experience with every line that has been put in here....you should have known the risk of a single point of failure from the very beginning. If the business has been ongoing for many years, you need to be prepared for this. Specifically if you have explored other options (akamai, fastly etc) you know that many of them demand licenses for the markets you are aiming for, which obviously you dont have , as if you had such papers you would not be facing the DNS blocks that you are being imposed on by the regulators of the countries that go on the offense here (A specific land mass in the southern hemisphere that has kangaroos roaming comes to mind....). Its the reason I was very loud against using all the other wonderful features CF has.....workers......etc. In the end, I have sympathy as I know exactly what happened here (before and after the nuclear option exercised by CF) . The pay-for a year in advance, this is new to me but possibly an evolution on what happens with our specific industry. As far as uncached authenticated api requests....CF is a tool, just like a 747 is a tool. Dont expect it to fly by itself, this is the part where you EARN your wage (either that or submit your CV to the engineering team of CF and work for them developing these features that ofc are not free) . One more note, CF is used to deal with a lot of fire aimed at them from lawyers , demanding to take down all sorts of stuff. Before they came to you, no doubt they evaluated the issues they were getting (letters/demands) versus your volume , history and most of all the capacity the business has , to pay versus the value you get (being able to play the endless creation of mirrors ) , so this, like everytihng else, is a balance (for both) .
Thank you for your very well-informed, insightful, and intelligent comment. You have added a lot of value, in stark contrast to all the blithering, reactionary nonsense that I am seeing on this forum. None of these people has dealt with legal before, Dunning-Kruger is running very strong throughout, and the hype-cycle that the original post generated is (mostly) unwarranted.
The only sad thing here is that CF seemed to be willing to just take $120k and look the other way to continue to facilitate the [likely] illegal activities that the OP admits to doing (i.e. trying to circumvent IP blocks by regulatory authorities).
Your comment about the client company's failure to do proper regulatory due diligence is extremely well taken. If I were an investor in this site I would never hire a single one of these people again. This is their own incompetence for having designed a business around something that they didn't understand without sufficient input from the legal/compliance department. They built a business on a shoddy foundation, and it was kneecapped by a single point of failure.
I dont even know where to start with this, I have personal and direct experience with every line that has been put in here....you should have known the risk of a single point of failure from the very beginning. If the business has been ongoing for many years, you need to be prepared for this. Specifically if you have explored other options (akamai, fastly etc) you know that many of them demand licenses for the markets you are aiming for, which obviously you dont have , as if you had such papers you would not be facing the DNS blocks that you are being imposed on by the regulators of the countries that go on the offense here (A specific land mass in the southern hemisphere that has kangaroos roaming comes to mind....). Its the reason I was very loud against using all the other wonderful features CF has.....workers......etc. In the end, I have sympathy as I know exactly what happened here (before and after the nuclear option exercised by CF) . The pay-for a year in advance, this is new to me but possibly an evolution on what happens with our specific industry. As far as uncached authenticated api requests....CF is a tool, just like a 747 is a tool. Dont expect it to fly by itself, this is the part where you EARN your wage (either that or submit your CV to the engineering team of CF and work for them developing these features that ofc are not free) . One more note, CF is used to deal with a lot of fire aimed at them from lawyers , demanding to take down all sorts of stuff. Before they came to you, no doubt they evaluated the issues they were getting (letters/demands) versus your volume , history and most of all the capacity the business has , to pay versus the value you get (being able to play the endless creation of mirrors ) , so this, like everytihng else, is a balance (for both) .
Thank you for your very well-informed, insightful, and intelligent comment. You have added a lot of value, in stark contrast to all the blithering, reactionary nonsense that I am seeing on this forum. None of these people has dealt with legal before, Dunning-Kruger is running very strong throughout, and the hype-cycle that the original post generated is (mostly) unwarranted.
The only sad thing here is that CF seemed to be willing to just take $120k and look the other way to continue to facilitate the [likely] illegal activities that the OP admits to doing (i.e. trying to circumvent IP blocks by regulatory authorities).
Your comment about the client company's failure to do proper regulatory due diligence is extremely well taken. If I were an investor in this site I would never hire a single one of these people again. This is their own incompetence for having designed a business around something that they didn't understand without sufficient input from the legal/compliance department. They built a business on a shoddy foundation, and it was kneecapped by a single point of failure.