211–220 of 231 posts
Technically, google did it right (using the "censored" error code: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8914#name-extended-... ): root@jack:~# dig footybite.cc @8.8.8.8 ; > DiG 9.18.19-1~deb12u1-Debian > footybite.cc @8.8.8.8 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should we not want this when the law is bad? The government should face pushback from all sides when attempting something odious.
It's a democratic country. The voters decide if the laws their government passes are bad or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't aware I ever voted for Elon Musk to have money.
Elon Musk never passed a law. The representatives chosen by the voters did. These representatives do not magically enter the government; they are selected by the voters. The voters freely decide wether they wish to have representatives who pass laws which are benefitial to Elon Musk.
From a small in-group of well connected people.
> The voters freely decide wether they wish to have representatives who pass laws which are benefitial to Elon Musk.
No, the voters at best select a bundle of stances for/against various things. Effectively this means you have no input except for maybe one or two issues you care most about. In practice you do not even get to do that as your representatives are not bound to what they promised to get you to elect them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should we not want this when the law is bad? The government should face pushback from all sides when attempting something odious.
One answers is that this case isn't actually a bad law. This appears to be blatant organized piracy. What's odious about copyright laws? This also appears to be pretty much the gold standard of due process. It's not like somebody submitting automated DMCA requests on videos with silent audio tracks or something. It's a court order for these specific domains, which would have been carefully curated and has been quite…
What does online streaming have to do with unsanctioned boating activities.
> What's odious about copyright laws?
Their violation of our rights to freely share and improve on our culture.
> This also appears to be pretty much the gold standard of due process.
This doesn't mean the court's decision is any more defensible.
The title on the website is “Google, Cloudflare & Cisco Will Poison DNS to Stop Piracy Block Circumvention”. Curious why Cloudflare has been singled out in the submission title?
Same concern here. Also, the phrasing in both, but especially the HN title made me think Cloudflare chose to do something, but it turns out the French court is forcing all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is other alternative, such as: get rid of their DNS service entirely, or make a petition for changing these laws.
Making a petition to change the laws sounds like a great way of achieving nothing. It will certainly not mean you get to ignore the court orders. Shutting down public DNS in France would be an option (a garbage option that nobody would actually choose in this case and that'd solve nothing, but an option nonetheless). That's not what dmitrygr was asking for though. They want big tech companies to ignore legitimate cou…
It would be the ethically correct option.
One of the interesting technical questions is how these vendors will choose to reflect the forbidden DNS entries in protocols like DoH where they have a choice. For example a reasonable thing for a DoH server to say when asked a DNS question it has been forbidden to answer truthfully, is HTTP 451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons.
That would be a layer/protocol violation. The HTTP status codes used in DoH are used to discuss the semantics of the DNS query itself, unrelated to the DNS response. For example an NXDOMAIN response is still a 200, not a 404. Edit: for what it’s worth, Google is doing this the “right” way in the DNS protocol itself, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40698650
And the the response is that the server cannot faithfully answer the DNS query due to legal reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will users find the new domains? If they can reliability do so then dns is not needed in the first place. If not, then the laws are effective.
There are almost certainly aggregate sites that will share the new domains, messages boards, social media, instant messaging, etc. Word of the new domains will travel very quickly. Hell, they could setup their own public DNS outside of France and suggest users use that. Users already switched from local/ISP DNS to Cloudflare / Google because of the previous law so that is not a big hurdle (ignoring the obvious securi…
In many cases it was browsers changing the used resolver behind the users back contrary to OS-wide settings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've identified exactly the problem. They'd be blocking thousands of unrelated innocent websites. Also, changing your IP address is really easy.
That’s something cloudflare doesn’t want either. They wouldn’t even need to do it, just threatening to would have a financial impact on cf.
Meanwhile it would do nothing to put the site offline regardless because there are more hosting companies than there are atoms in the universe and many of them serve primarily local clientele and wouldn't really care if they got blocked in a country where their customers aren't. They'd have to be blocking the majority of the total IPv4 address space before the site ran out of somewhere to move.
Wonder why they don't just go after the DNS registrars for these domains, or the DNS root servers.