5 ms·

"We’re exploring a flagship project on scaling up DNS filtering: what better way of providing automated defences at scale than by the major private providers ef

"We’re exploring a flagship project on scaling up DNS filtering: what better way of providing automated defences at scale than by the major private providers effectively blocking their customers from coming into contact with known malware and bad addresses?" Because this definitely isn't a step towards state censorship, no siree!

verytrivial 10y ago
"bad addresses" -- What better way to avoid crimethink. We must implement this double plus speedwise.
strictnein 10y ago
Nope, not at all. Russia went a similar route, but did a "think of the children!" angle, among other things. For those interested, The Red Web does a good job covering this (and many other topics). - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/02/the-red-web-review-andrei-soldatov-irina-borogan-review-russias-attack-internet-freedoms https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/02/the-red-web-re...
throwawayReply 10y ago
Step towards? This is state-wide censorship. But isn't the truth that it is already implemented in UK ISP's DNS offerings anyway, and that this is just extending the filter so you can't bypass it by changing to a different DNS server? This should be a textbook case on how to achieve censorship. Start by having it "optional", but not an option a user opts into explicitly, just implicitly in a way they don't understand (by "choosing" their ISP). Then when 99% of people are already covered, roll it out in a compulsory way across everywhere because "This won't affect most people, just a small number of people". No debate needed.
- pixl97 10y ago
  > and that this is just extending the filter so you can't bypass it by changing to a different DNS server? No, many people will just use VPNs Then the government will find a need to ban VPNs for the safety of its citizens.
sp332 10y ago
Blocking DNS is not that effective. https://twitter.com/mockupgoodsco/status/585082122211303424 https://twitter.com/mockupgoodsco/status/585082122211303424
- dijit 10y ago
  it does if you force all DNS traffic to GCHQ's servers. Britain has shown repeatedly that it can force ISPs into doing what it wants.

verytrivial 10y ago

"bad addresses" -- What better way to avoid crimethink. We must implement this double plus speedwise.

strictnein 10y ago

Nope, not at all. Russia went a similar route, but did a "think of the children!" angle, among other things. For those interested, The Red Web does a good job covering this (and many other topics). - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/02/the-red-web-review-andrei-soldatov-irina-borogan-review-russias-attack-internet-freedoms https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/02/the-red-web-re...

throwawayReply 10y ago

Step towards? This is state-wide censorship. But isn't the truth that it is already implemented in UK ISP's DNS offerings anyway, and that this is just extending the filter so you can't bypass it by changing to a different DNS server? This should be a textbook case on how to achieve censorship. Start by having it "optional", but not an option a user opts into explicitly, just implicitly in a way they don't understand (by "choosing" their ISP). Then when 99% of people are already covered, roll it out in a compulsory way across everywhere because "This won't affect most people, just a small number of people". No debate needed.

pixl97 10y ago
> and that this is just extending the filter so you can't bypass it by changing to a different DNS server? No, many people will just use VPNs Then the government will find a need to ban VPNs for the safety of its citizens.

sp332 10y ago

Blocking DNS is not that effective. https://twitter.com/mockupgoodsco/status/585082122211303424 https://twitter.com/mockupgoodsco/status/585082122211303424

dijit 10y ago
it does if you force all DNS traffic to GCHQ's servers. Britain has shown repeatedly that it can force ISPs into doing what it wants.