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

Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 456 posts

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#411

Post by dcow »

kelnos wrote: post #283
dcow wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm taking issue at the hyperbolic nature of the comment. I'm not an ISP apologist. But to say there are zero technical reasons for an ISP to want to provide DNS is unfair and incorrect. Cloudflare and Google pay ISPs for the latency they get, FWIW. If I made my own resolver service today I would not be able to compete with your ISP without forking over $$$.

I don't really understand why you keep repeating this claim that we're arguing that there are zero technical reasons for an ISP to want to provide DNS. No one is saying that. Perhaps you misunderstood my original topelevel comment. If that's the case, let me try to clarify: ISPs have zero technical reasons to complain that people are using alternative resolvers. I totally see why they want to provide DNS resolvers, a…

Yeah that’s what happened my bad. Anyway, see my other comment: I still don’t think simply being able to choose your resolver as a consumer is enough. We need to defend against abuse technically and socially. It really shouldn’t matter which DNS provider you do use.

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#412

Post by teddyh »

icebraining wrote: post #293
topranks wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not attacking Google - their approach here is fine. But Mozilla switching people is a worry for me. Sure people “have a choice” but in reality expecting the average Joe who doesn’t even know what DNS is to make an informed decision about it is unrealistic. Meanwhile Mozilla has started sending a list of every domain you visit to a US company subject to US law enforcement. Not ideal.

Mozilla only started to doing that for US users.

“started”

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#413

Post by Miraste »

cm2187 wrote: post #311
taneq wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your ISP knows even your bank details. Google was buying MasterCard records: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-an...

And they can use that if they know your identity, like if you provided them a phone number. But I don't believe they can't do much from an IP alone. Unless the ISP starts ratting us out.

Theoretically, yes. For that to work, you also need everything on your network to never have encountered a google cookie, adwords, Android, Chrome, YouTube, Maps, Google DNS servers, any of various "smart" devices, etc. And hope those Google Global Cache servers living at your ISP are trustworthy.

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#414

Post by lidHanteyk »

SquareWheel wrote: post #202
lidHanteyk wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's technical justifications are usually pathetically self-serving. My favorite example: Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? There are obvious improvements to privacy if we switch to server-managed sessions chosen by user-provided identities, and get rid of cookies, but it would frustrate Google's tracking of us, so it can't happen.

> Why have they not yet removed cookies from HTTP? Browser vendors generally try not to break millions of webpages overnight.

I'm not talking about HTTP/1.1, but HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, both of which were pushed by Google. Google had two chances to remove cookies, and blew it.

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#415

Post by Spivak »

panpanna wrote: post #320
Nitramp wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to just blindly trust, there are ToS and privacy statements. My TL;DR is that Google doesn't use logs outside of service health (eg vs DDoS).

So what pays for this service?

Nothing or Google depending on how you want to think about it. Google needed this service for themselves, as the default fallback DNS for their devices, their domain registrar, for GCP and it made sense to just let the public use it too for some good PR.

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#416

Post by myrandomcomment »

dragonwriter wrote: post #384
zupa-hu wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds backwards. You sure that will be their biggest concern if you drop dead? They can always throw out your weird techy stuff and buy some cheap commodity solution and get them installed. Your reasoning sounds like, I'm not going to do breakfast for my family, because, ya know, if I drop dead, they will miss the breakfasts.

> You sure that will be their biggest concern if you drop dead? That it's not their biggest concern doesn't mean that it won't be a concern, nor did it mean that it's not something he can avoid becoming a concern.

Correct. We have life insurance. We have a trust. All the normal stuff you do. What I am looking at is what are the things that I do / maintain for the family and how will that be handled if something happens? Having an overly complex technical setup is one of the areas on that list. My death would of course have the normal emotional impact it would have for any family. I am trying to make sure that everything else around it that I can sort, I do. My daughter works hard everyday at her schooling because she is determined to be a doctor. My job as a parent is to give her everything I can to make sure she is happy and successfully in her life for as long as I can. The is the promise I made when we had her.

Some of the comments here are taking the piss...let see how you feel when you hold your baby for the first time.

Btw, for context, in the last 3 years I have had perfectly heathy friend that was in perfect shape drop dead from unexpected heart issues at 38. He had 3 kids. Another friend with 2 kids was killing in a car wreak at 44. Looking at the things their family’s have had to deal with is the reason why I am thinking about this.

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#417

Post by tidepod12 »

afiori wrote: post #296
tidepod12 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question the amount that such ethics courses actually help. Business majors have had ethics courses for as long as I can imagine, and yet you don't have to go far on HN (even in this very thread) before you see people saying business majors are unethical. The bigger problem, IMO, is that many tech companies have started handing out kool-aid that data collection and analytics is ethical. They justify it by saying th…

Saying that business majors are full of unethical people is like saying that politics is full of unethical people, it is the job that attract those characteristics. The objective of those ethical classes is to move the neutral/good majority in hope in hope to counterbalance the unethical minority.

And computer science is just as full of unethical people. The highest paying jobs available to those in their 20s and 30s, by far, are computer science jobs. That alone attracts an incredible amount of people only in it for the money.

On top of that, companies which are usually regarded as some of the most unethical companies on the planet (especially in regards to privacy) are companies like Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, which are worshipped by and have computer science people scrambling to get hired by them. Going back a little further in history, before FAANG, the companies that were revered by the tech world were the very same ISPs that this post is railing against.

Programmers as a whole seem to have no problem at all being unethical as long as it gets them either money or the chance to work on the latest tech fad.

Re: Big ISPs aren’t happy about Google’s plans for encrypted DNS

#420

Post by dang »

paulmd wrote: post #304
TimTheTinker wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Business majors have had ethics courses for as long as I can imagine I took a business ethics course in undergrad, and it was surprising how many students advocated all sorts of (to me) aberrant ethical views. (Note I’m pretty traditional, morally speaking. The environment was strongly postmodern, and this was before all the modern insanity about “free speech is bad because some people say bad/offensive things”.) N…

Most nations besides the US don't subscribe to an unlimited right to speech. Hell, the US doesn't subscribe to an unlimited right to speech. Should I be allowed to say that I think you should die for the opinion you just espoused? That is probably not a legal statement for me to make under the US principles of free speech. Should you be allowed to say that you think I should die for my genetics or the social group th…

This crosses into political flamewar and personal attack, which you can't do on HN, regardless of how right you are or how righteous your cause.

Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it.

Post reply on HN