Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project Shield

jigsaw.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: Project Shield

#41

Post by Dylan16807 »

contingencies wrote: post #23
frozenport wrote: post #17

This is going to play into the hands of authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. They will simply block Google.

Couldn't agree more; no idea who is downvoting you, this is the most insightful comment here. Also, it's fucking hypocritical claiming to support 'net neutrality' while hand-picking sites to receive support of a massive private-fiber global conglomerate with very strong senior management political affiliations. Engineers with ethics at google should start a rebellion.

China and Russia don't generally censor via DDOS.

A reverse proxy that connects from the internet to the internet does not need to be neutral. Free hosting does not need to be neutral. Net neutrality is about packets getting between an end user and the core of the internet fairly. This service is in a different area entirely.

Re: Project Shield

#43

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

cleeus wrote: post #31
jpalomaki wrote: post #7

Of course I'm not blaming Google or Cloudflare, but it is kind of sad that larger and larger part of the Internet is moving behind their networks. I don't think this kind of centralization is good for the Internet.

It's the feudalism age of the internet. Everyone needs a lord for protection.

>It's the feudalism age of the internet. Everyone needs a lord for protection.

i think Schneier likes this analogy, he has used it before:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.ht...

He then calls for the state and the law to protect us from our overlords; now that was all written before Snowden (the presnowdonian period)

Still nice that google does this hosting + ddos protection work; they could have chosen not to do it.

Re: Project Shield

#45

Post by nkohari »

meira wrote: post #42

Would Google protects the webapp they created (and gave to Al Jazeera) to support the creation of Islamic State?

Considering Jigsaw is also interested in combating extremism, I'd say no.

Re: Project Shield

#46

Post by contingencies »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #41
contingencies wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more; no idea who is downvoting you, this is the most insightful comment here. Also, it's fucking hypocritical claiming to support 'net neutrality' while hand-picking sites to receive support of a massive private-fiber global conglomerate with very strong senior management political affiliations. Engineers with ethics at google should start a rebellion.

China and Russia don't generally censor via DDOS. A reverse proxy that connects from the internet to the internet does not need to be neutral. Free hosting does not need to be neutral. Net neutrality is about packets getting between an end user and the core of the internet fairly. This service is in a different area entirely.

Straw man about DDoS, nobody asserted that here.

As far as private fiber, global search traffic, cached pages, maps, mail and advertising goes, Google already is the core of the internet.

Re: Project Shield

#47

Post by mtbcoder »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #39

Kudos to both Krebs and Google for their courage. I have profound admiration for Brian's work and Google's technology. I didn't know about Project Shield and I think it's an interesting initiative. However, for some reason it leaves me a bit unease (not as much as the idea of being taken down by a 650Gbps DDoS at will!) - not sure what it is, but we might be moving towards an Internet where only the "approved" would…

> I really hope ISP naming and shaming takes over, so we can make DDoS a little bit more difficult.

I think naming and shaming would have little impact and whatever impact it did have would be short lived. Consumers tend to have short attention spans and zero long term memory. Take the banking/finance industry for example, were egregious, predatory and at times criminal tactics are par for the course. Banking institutions are named and shamed all the time, yet the Bank of Americas, Wells Fargos and Goldman Sachs of the world still exist.

Re: Project Shield

#48

Post by afsina »

nl wrote: post #38
afsina wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than nation states.

That's interesting, in the context of a quote from the KerbsOnSecurity piece which prompted this post: John Gilmore, an American entrepreneur and civil libertarian, once famously quipped that “the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” This notion undoubtedly rings true for those who see national governments as the principal threats to free speech. However, events of the past week have convin…

At the end, if nation states are helpless on preventing this, and only being part of the problem, I say this - our benevolent feodal overlords - is the preferable solution.

Re: Project Shield

#49

Post by meira »

nkohari wrote: post #45
meira wrote: post #42

Would Google protects the webapp they created (and gave to Al Jazeera) to support the creation of Islamic State?

Considering Jigsaw is also interested in combating extremism, I'd say no.

Only Google Search and Youtube are the apps in Alphabet that are allowed to support terrorism?

Re: Project Shield

#50

Post by slim »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #39

Kudos to both Krebs and Google for their courage. I have profound admiration for Brian's work and Google's technology. I didn't know about Project Shield and I think it's an interesting initiative. However, for some reason it leaves me a bit unease (not as much as the idea of being taken down by a 650Gbps DDoS at will!) - not sure what it is, but we might be moving towards an Internet where only the "approved" would…

There would be no DDoS if computers connected to the internet were secure
Post reply on HN