Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
arstechnica.com
Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
1–10 of 456 posts
Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#2Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#3From Google's perspective being able to block ads with your hosts file is a bug, not a feature.
Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#4Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#5From Google's perspective being able to block ads with your hosts file is a bug, not a feature.
Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#6But that status is fragile. The ISP has to act like it knows its obligations in law, and there are things ISPs have been doing to work with LEA for a long long time, which they won't be able to do as simply, or as well, or in some cases at all.
As a customer its easy to assume the only answer is "good" but in fact, its more complex. Society depends on law, and the application of law around what people do online is not trivial, and does not reduce down to 'all snooping is always bad all the time' -Warrants exist to do things, and warrant canaries are a reaction to them but not one which says warrants don't exist: they say silent warrants should not be obligated on the receiver of the interception: They're a position on secret law, not a position on law in itself.
TL;DR DoH and DoT are challenging established law in telecoms and big ISPs who have common-carrier defence depend on interception in DNS and DPI and the like, to perform their role facing LEA demands from the state which in many cases are entirely normal and justified
Not all DoH and DoT stories are good stories for society at large.
Please don't reduce this to a libertarian vs everyone else debate, I would invite you to think about what an ISP is, and what we want from ISPs as a whole, not just as customers seeking pirate bay, but as a society investing in a telecommunications-rich future.
The first casualty of war is the truth. The second (in WWI and WWII) was the deep sea telecommunications cables.
Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#7From Google's perspective being able to block ads with your hosts file is a bug, not a feature.
Perhaps. I personally would still setup DoH at the router level. ISPs begone.
Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#8Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#9From Google's perspective being able to block ads with your hosts file is a bug, not a feature.
- The hosts file should still take effect (Chromium can read the hosts file and parse it already.)
- The DoH upgrading should not override your default resolver. It works by having a lookup table of providers that support DoH and using DoH if your provider supports it. The list can be seen here: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/net/dns/dns_util.cc?q=D... (note: this URL may become stale over time; there’s ways to improve this but I am on mobile at the moment.)
Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS
#10From Google's perspective being able to block ads with your hosts file is a bug, not a feature.