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

Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 274 posts

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#241

Post by somewhatrandom9 »

johnhtodd wrote: post #238
somewhatrandom9 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw your response about not blocking ads currently. What about blocking adult content, for a child's computer? Mullvad had such an option[1] under family.dns.mullvad.net. Very useful! [1] https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-over-https-and-dns-over-tls

This is an area that is fraught with challenges. Serving a truly global audience means standards are difficult to measure as to what is "adult content" - it varies widely (Wikipedia in some areas is "adult content", as an example.) In the near term, there is no filter set that we offer that mimics that functionality. However, we recognize some variation of "best effort" adult content segmentation is a useful filter t…

Perhaps you could ask Mullvad how they did it? You might protect yourself with disclaimers that your results may not be perfect? You still could create a useful/ effective service even if it's not 100% perfect I would think.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#242

Post by pocksuppet »

iamnothere wrote: post #130
pocksuppet wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, obviously he is. There is also no law of the universe that prevents a black person from interviewing a far right person or supporting a far right party.

Calling Kim Jong Un “far right” is a special level of ultra-left idiocy. I’m guessing you consider Marx a “moderate” then.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#243

Post by pocksuppet »

betterbeehome wrote: post #141
pocksuppet wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as a left-leaning party that harsh on immigration. Only parties that call themselves left-leaning. You may as well speak of a capitalist party that wants to seize and redistribute the means of production.

"There's no such thing as a left-leaning party that harsh on immigration." This was probably the most ignorant thing I've read today. You're knowledge of political history must not extend very far.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#244

Post by dbmnt »

iamnothere wrote: post #23

Quad9 is a reasonable choice given the stance on privacy and the similar jurisdiction (Mullvad would probably face the same takedown orders as Quad9), but really anyone who cares about bypassing national blocking orders should run a local caching recursive resolver. Unbound is a great choice. Unbound can also be used to block malware and advertising domains using shared public lists, or you can build your own list. Y…

[dead]

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#245

Post by iamnothere »

pocksuppet wrote: post #242
iamnothere wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling Kim Jong Un “far right” is a special level of ultra-left idiocy. I’m guessing you consider Marx a “moderate” then.

Can you elaborate?

Many left ultras (broadly defined, including Trotskyites, leftcoms, and radlibs alike) have somehow adopted the position that only groups who identify with their cultural agenda qualify as “left”, which is frankly a perversion of the left-right descriptor. It’s why the whole left-right thing should be abandoned, as the waters are hopelessly muddied.

Somehow you now have “radical” neoliberals (lol) and leftcoms both claiming the mantle of leftism while simultaneously casting nearly the ENTIRE HISTORY of Marxism as “rightist”. Like how the fuck is Stalin a rightist? Yet this isn’t an uncommon position in the internet discourse. If you disagree, you are a “tankie” even if you aren’t a Marxist, but are simply fucking educated and understand the history of left economics and politics.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#246

Post by otterley »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #228
brainwad wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it?

> CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it? Public domain is something different from an emulation of "there is no copyright": You can take public domain material to build some program binary: - In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary, and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering, ... - In a "no copyright world", you cannot enfor…

> In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary [from a public domain source], and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering

IAAL and am pretty familiar with U.S. copyright law, and am curious where support for this proposition in the law is found. Can you provide sources, please?

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#247

Post by otterley »

jMyles wrote: post #235
otterley wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be frank, it sounds like you are part of the problem, and that your income may partly be derived from rent-seeking via the intellectual property regime. Is that correct? That is not correct. My current role is a technical one, not a legal one. > where we may disagree is whether any actual services in rendered to the folks doing the writing and recording and touring in exchange for that enrichment. Besides studio…

> That is not correct. My current role is a technical one, not a legal one. Well then I apologize for my presumption. > Besides studio time, connections to expert studio musicians, producers, engineers, advances and royalties? The first four of these have nothing to do with IP schemes and are widely available to those of us who grind not only our music but our social connections. I publish all of my music as CC0 or C…

> the framework of casting their work as intellectual property has impoverished rather than enriching them

Some hit artists might disagree with you.

Besides, the ones who flopped don’t owe the rightsholders money from their own pockets. It’s not a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for the artists. In some ways an advance is a better deal than a typical business loan. In fact, a business loan is a pretty good approximation of a typical early record deal. The challenge is that it’s often difficult to get artists to understand that.

> The intensity of financial firms in and around downtown Nashville is a testament to how many billions have been diverted from their fan-=>artist path and have instead made their way into the pockets not only of studio execs, but their underwriters and insurers.

Well, yeah. For every hit artist there are thousands of flops. Someone has to bear the risk of developing the artists, building repertoires, fronting the money to make first records, and marketing. It’s an axiom of capitalism that the party that takes the biggest financial risk gets the biggest share of the rewards.

I think what you’re really saying is that you think artists deserve a bigger share of the profits. That’s a fair position to hold, but it’s a rather differ one from the statements I was previously responding to.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#248

Post by brainwad »

otterley wrote: post #233
brainwad wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think so much open source software is written, if you need a profit motive for software to be created? Also, let's be real - human written (and therefore copyrightable) code is dying already. When the machines can write anything on demand, why do you need a profit motive?

> Why do you think so much open source software is written, if you need a profit motive for software to be created? That's like asking why gardeners like to grow food and flowers in their backyards, or why hobbyists like to build furniture in their garages. Some people need a creative outlet. It doesn't mean that a lot of people won't grow food, flowers, or furniture for free, and that there's no demand for food, flo…

Ok, but unlike hobby gardening, open source maintainers actually write the core software we all rely on. That's where the analogy falls over - the "hobbyists" are producing a sufficient bounty already, without a profit motive. A lot of them are paid employees of corporations, but those corporations often don't make profit on the open source software they contribute to either.

> Machines still need humans to power them. They're like any other tools that need direction and guidance, by humans that possess the innate creativity.

Yes but ideas are not copyrightable, only the fixed expression of those ideas in (in this case) written form. If the actual writing of the code is delegated entirely to machines, then software copyrights are dead.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#249

Post by [deleted] »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #228
brainwad wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it?

> CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it? Public domain is something different from an emulation of "there is no copyright": You can take public domain material to build some program binary: - In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary, and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering, ... - In a "no copyright world", you cannot enfor…

[deleted]

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#250

Post by anonzzzies »

johnhtodd wrote: post #150
loup-vaillant wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The German courts entirely disregarded our use of geo-IP lookups on queries, and asserted that since tests via a VPN were able to resolve the domain, we were in breach of court orders Seriously, what the fuck? So you're supposed to block VPNs as well? What's next, Tor exit nodes? New VPN and Tor nodes as they pop up? I really don't like where this is going.

What's even worse: the court fined us because they claimed this use case was in some way in contempt of their ruling. Then, when we won the overall case, that money was never returned because it wasn't specifically referenced by the final court. The response from the lower court was effectively: "Well, you will need to sue the court to get that money back." Edit: I'm with Quad9 (CTO)

Maybe Mullvad can help fight this type of nonsense?
Post reply on HN