8 ms·

What if I don't believe them?

mehrdadn 8y ago
Well then you don't believe them. But then whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private, and by what rationale do you find them more believable than Google?
- earenndil 8y ago
  A company whose business model isn't based entirely in analyzing user data in order to sell them the most things. Remember: these data don't have to be tied to your account. Google can use your ip address to glean your (approximate) location, and then use the websites you visit to better tell what kind of people live in that area. Even if they don't store the websites themselves, they can categorize the websites and store a category breakdown. They can find out what demographic you belong to from your account, and then associate the websites you visit with that demographic rather than that account. Lots of data that can be stored even if they're not directly associated with your account or the individual websites you visit.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > A company whose business model isn't based entirely in analyzing user data in order to sell them the most things. Really? That's the only bar? So you're going to trust any company who isn't in this business without even reading & comparing their privacy policy or looking at their past history? I also have to say I don't understand what you guys' true fear (read: threat model) is. It seems like for Google your criterion is "if they could potentially keep such data, they're automatically dangerous (doubly so if their name is 'Google')", whereas for anyone else not in the advertising business your standard suddenly changes to "I don't care what data they have, as long as I don't see evidence of active misbehavior". To me this sounds like what you really fear is personalized advertising itself rather than an actual privacy or security breach, which doesn't entirely make logical sense considering what the dangers of each of them are.
    - earenndil 8y ago
      > So you're going to trust any company who isn't in this business I never said that. I said that I'm not going to trust a company that has this business model. That by no means implies that I'm going to blindly trust a company with another business model, rather that trust in such a company is possible.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        OK, then you didn't answer my question either. I was not asking "which companies would you not trust, and by what rationale"? The question I asked was: "Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private, and by what rationale do you find them more believable than Google?" Telling me you wouldn't trust someone who meets some disqualifying criterion isn't useful if you have so many disqualifying criteria that you wouldn't trust anybody, which frankly is the impression I get reading people's comments on this issue. If you have an actual company that you would trust, and a clear rationale for doing so, that's where we can have a real discussion.
        pdkl95 8y ago
        > Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private You presupposing that it is necessary to send all DNS traffic to one entity. I run a local recursive nameserver (unbound) instead of sending all of my queries to a different nameserver. Combined with aggressive caching, any particular DNS server (from .ROOT-SERVERS.NET down to the specific authoritative nameservers for a specific domain) is only able to view a tiny subset of my browsing behavior. Most of the time the query to the final authoritative nameserver is to be followed quickly by a TCP SYN packet that reveals roughly the same information. Yes, running the full recursive resolver locally can be very slightly* slower than asking e.g. the local ISP's server that probably has the query cached. Fortunately, local caching limits this (very minor) problem to only the first request for a domain.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Running a recursive resolver isn't really that great from a "trust no one" perspective, because the .com nameservers are getting a decidedly not tiny subset of your access activity.
Steve0 8y ago
If you don't trust a provider the obvious choice is to use another one.
- mrmondo 8y ago
  It’s obvious for some people (perhaps the OP, yourself and myself for example) it’s not obvious or obvious that it’s even an option to the majority of people. I personally try to advocate for good privacy education at places of work, study and play usually with a combination of a) the naritive / context, b) Provide simple examples (of why it probably matters), c) Explain with metaphors, and d) Give some simple advice where possible. It’s not a perfect strategy but I think it does noticeably help lift the awareness bar.
  - jeffcore 8y ago
    Except in this case, I'd argue it's fairly obvious. One tends to make a conscious decision to change their DNS server from that provided by their ISP to a public DNS service such as Google's.
mda 8y ago
Then why are you ranting about it? If you dont believe what they say about the service why waste our time with your diatribe.
- mrmondo 8y ago
  Please try to be polite and stay away from nasty comments (especially when you’re not providing evidence based arguments).
zavi 8y ago
If you have good reasons not to believe then you can sue Google and make $$$. Otherwise you're just hurting yourself.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
UncleMeat 8y ago
It is literally illegal now for them to lie about this. You are welcome to believe that Google is just actively causing harm. But I don't understand why you'd specifically do this for them but not other businesses.
- buth_lika 8y ago
  People can and do say that about any business or nation or whatever "specifically" being criticized. Why not criticize all of them? Because comments are limited in length, and because the subject at hand is cheapo PR for Google? Even if you were to criticize "all, fairly", you would have to start somewhere, and there would always someone saying "why not start with Y first", and when you criticize Y someone else says "why not start with X first". Especially since people asking that generally know nothing about the people who criticize a thing, and what else they might criticize in other contexts. It's not like they're busy criticizing some bigger evil and criticism of $thing_under_current_discussion blocks their noble work. At worst they're doing nothing, yet expect others who are doing something -- even if that's just making one decision against one product or company, rather than zero, and making one comment about their own personal actual stance, instead of about synthesized hypothetical persons -- to take some time out of their day to answer pointless "questions".
scarejunba 8y ago
Lead with that then, so we know to ignore you.
- buth_lika 8y ago
  Who is "we"?
forgot-my-pw 8y ago
Then use something else, but what your ISP offers you is probably a lot worse (in service quality and security).

Well then you don't believe them. But then whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private, and by what rationale do you find them more believable than Google?

earenndil 8y ago
A company whose business model isn't based entirely in analyzing user data in order to sell them the most things. Remember: these data don't have to be tied to your account. Google can use your ip address to glean your (approximate) location, and then use the websites you visit to better tell what kind of people live in that area. Even if they don't store the websites themselves, they can categorize the websites and store a category breakdown. They can find out what demographic you belong to from your account, and then associate the websites you visit with that demographic rather than that account. Lots of data that can be stored even if they're not directly associated with your account or the individual websites you visit.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > A company whose business model isn't based entirely in analyzing user data in order to sell them the most things. Really? That's the only bar? So you're going to trust any company who isn't in this business without even reading & comparing their privacy policy or looking at their past history? I also have to say I don't understand what you guys' true fear (read: threat model) is. It seems like for Google your criterion is "if they could potentially keep such data, they're automatically dangerous (doubly so if their name is 'Google')", whereas for anyone else not in the advertising business your standard suddenly changes to "I don't care what data they have, as long as I don't see evidence of active misbehavior". To me this sounds like what you really fear is personalized advertising itself rather than an actual privacy or security breach, which doesn't entirely make logical sense considering what the dangers of each of them are.
  - earenndil 8y ago
    > So you're going to trust any company who isn't in this business I never said that. I said that I'm not going to trust a company that has this business model. That by no means implies that I'm going to blindly trust a company with another business model, rather that trust in such a company is possible.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      OK, then you didn't answer my question either. I was not asking "which companies would you not trust, and by what rationale"? The question I asked was: "Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private, and by what rationale do you find them more believable than Google?" Telling me you wouldn't trust someone who meets some disqualifying criterion isn't useful if you have so many disqualifying criteria that you wouldn't trust anybody, which frankly is the impression I get reading people's comments on this issue. If you have an actual company that you would trust, and a clear rationale for doing so, that's where we can have a real discussion.
      - pdkl95 8y ago
        > Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private You presupposing that it is necessary to send all DNS traffic to one entity. I run a local recursive nameserver (unbound) instead of sending all of my queries to a different nameserver. Combined with aggressive caching, any particular DNS server (from .ROOT-SERVERS.NET down to the specific authoritative nameservers for a specific domain) is only able to view a tiny subset of my browsing behavior. Most of the time the query to the final authoritative nameserver is to be followed quickly by a TCP SYN packet that reveals roughly the same information. Yes, running the full recursive resolver locally can be very slightly* slower than asking e.g. the local ISP's server that probably has the query cached. Fortunately, local caching limits this (very minor) problem to only the first request for a domain.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Running a recursive resolver isn't really that great from a "trust no one" perspective, because the .com nameservers are getting a decidedly not tiny subset of your access activity.

Steve0 8y ago

If you don't trust a provider the obvious choice is to use another one.

mrmondo 8y ago
It’s obvious for some people (perhaps the OP, yourself and myself for example) it’s not obvious or obvious that it’s even an option to the majority of people. I personally try to advocate for good privacy education at places of work, study and play usually with a combination of a) the naritive / context, b) Provide simple examples (of why it probably matters), c) Explain with metaphors, and d) Give some simple advice where possible. It’s not a perfect strategy but I think it does noticeably help lift the awareness bar.
- jeffcore 8y ago
  Except in this case, I'd argue it's fairly obvious. One tends to make a conscious decision to change their DNS server from that provided by their ISP to a public DNS service such as Google's.

mda 8y ago

Then why are you ranting about it? If you dont believe what they say about the service why waste our time with your diatribe.

mrmondo 8y ago
Please try to be polite and stay away from nasty comments (especially when you’re not providing evidence based arguments).

zavi 8y ago

If you have good reasons not to believe then you can sue Google and make $$$. Otherwise you're just hurting yourself.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

UncleMeat 8y ago

It is literally illegal now for them to lie about this. You are welcome to believe that Google is just actively causing harm. But I don't understand why you'd specifically do this for them but not other businesses.

buth_lika 8y ago
People can and do say that about any business or nation or whatever "specifically" being criticized. Why not criticize all of them? Because comments are limited in length, and because the subject at hand is cheapo PR for Google? Even if you were to criticize "all, fairly", you would have to start somewhere, and there would always someone saying "why not start with Y first", and when you criticize Y someone else says "why not start with X first". Especially since people asking that generally know nothing about the people who criticize a thing, and what else they might criticize in other contexts. It's not like they're busy criticizing some bigger evil and criticism of $thing_under_current_discussion blocks their noble work. At worst they're doing nothing, yet expect others who are doing something -- even if that's just making one decision against one product or company, rather than zero, and making one comment about their own personal actual stance, instead of about synthesized hypothetical persons -- to take some time out of their day to answer pointless "questions".

scarejunba 8y ago

Lead with that then, so we know to ignore you.

buth_lika 8y ago
Who is "we"?

forgot-my-pw 8y ago

Then use something else, but what your ISP offers you is probably a lot worse (in service quality and security).