10 ms·
This should bother people here more than it does. The last thing the Internet needs is even more dependence upon Google. They've made it quite clear through the
by calibas 8y ago
This should bother people here more than it does. The last thing the Internet needs is even more dependence upon Google. They've made it quite clear through their actions that they're not supporters of a free and open Internet: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/ https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l...
If people don't push back against these kinds of things, Google will continue to abuse their power. There shouldn't be an army of apologists here making excuses for them.
As far as a solution goes, they can simply make 8.8.8.8 a fallback when something goes wrong. It's a disturbing trend to see them forcing things like this upon users.
- pexaizix 8y agoIt doesn't bother me because it's a Chromecast, an appliance I don't want or need. If I needed something similar, I could get it from other manufacturers.
- arbitrage 8y agoFirst they came for the appliances I don't want or need, because I don't use appliances I don't want or need. This has been discussed to death. Slippery slope, etc., etc.
- pexaizix 8y agoI disagree. People who care about not hitting 8.8.8.8 simply do not own a Chromecast.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- angusp 8y agoNot really, before you could firewall it off from the rest of your network - though now you can just masquerade 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 to your DNS server of choice
- pixl97 8y agoUntil Google implements DNS over TLS and does cert checking.
- tiew9Vii 8y agoI run an OpenBSD router with PF: pass in quick on { $lan $wireguard } proto udp to { 8.8.8.8 8.8.4.4 } port 53 rdr-to 192.168.2.1 Locally I run Unbound for caching, local dns zones and ad/malware domain blocking[2]. I have a DNS forwarder in Unbound configured to a local Stubby[1] instance that does dns over tls to Cloudflare. Having done "big data" contract work for the largest telco in my current country of residence who are some of the worst skilled people I have ever work with, your local ISP is highly likely abusing your DNS history profiling your household for various questionable things just as much as Google. At least with Cloudflare they have a clear privacy policy[3] and I have faith their technical skill to anonymize data and use it can't be as bad as my ISP. [1] https://dnsprivacy.org/wiki/display/DP/DNS+Privacy+Daemon+-+Stubby https://dnsprivacy.org/wiki/display/DP/DNS+Privacy+Daemon+-+... [2] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts [3] https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/privacy-policy/ https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-priv...
- lostlogin 8y agoI own one and have bought three. Cloudflare DNS for me (via a Pihole).
- snowwindwaves 8y agoare you internally masquerading 8.8.8.8 to 1.1.1.1?
- lostlogin 8y agoI just pointed the Pihole at 1.1.1.1 and added 8.8.8.8 to the block list. The Chromecast works fine with it. Not sure if the Pihole does something clever though? I’m very sure that the Chromecast does but I can see it’s traffic on the Pihole.
- fonosip 8y agoYou have to masquerade at your router. Or at the vpn. For example https://ba.net/adblock/vpn/roku-chromecast-fix.html https://ba.net/adblock/vpn/roku-chromecast-fix.html
- lostlogin 8y agoThanks.
- justizin 8y agoThis is patently false, as Paul Vixie, who created DNS, clearly owns one.
- nirvdrum 8y agoFWIW, Chrome does this as well. Its DNS prefetch feature will ignore your local hosts file and configured DNS servers. It creates annoying problems if you have a VPN where some hosts resolve differently than they do publicly. Granted, in this case if you block Google's DNS servers from routing, Chrome will use your system's name resolution configuration.
- odorousrex 8y agoTIL! This upsets me more than the Chromecast using Google's DNS. I barely use Chrome anymore (just for testing really) but the thought that any domain I wish to go to can be overridden by the browser by default - that's scary. I mean what if Google doesn't like your website's content. They can block it on their DNS server and 99.999% of Chrome users would think something was wrong with your site. Thank you, I hate it.
- DCoder 8y agoIn theory, couldn't Firefox's certificate store blacklist the TLS certificate your website uses, with the same user-confusing result?
- admax88q 8y agoI mean in theory your web browser doesn't have to respect the address bar, it can do whatever the fuck it wants. The point is what Chrome is already doing is not good behaviour.
- StreamBright 8y agoI was thinking about buying a better network device for home and have VLANs and ACLs just to take control of my internet again. It is pretty annoying that Google not only trying to track me everywhere but actively overriding system wide settings to be able to get information what sites I am visiting.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
- pizza 8y agoI think the idea is that getting Google to fix this by telling them this is unacceptable is a swifter course of action than hoping Google will notice your individual $35 purchase went elsewhere.
- subcosmos 8y agoYou mean they can't just machine-vision the expression on your face, through your webcam, when you decide against a purchase?
- brokenmachine 8y agoLol! Unfortunately only on Android 8 devices.
- reaperducer 8y agoThe last thing the Internet needs is even more dependence upon Google Watching Big G's actions over the last few years, I've sometimes wondered if it's laying the groundwork to fork the internet. People talk about China and Russia's actions balkanizing the internet. But I have a sense that Google could do it, as well, and bring us back to the days when people didn't know the difference between the real internet and America Online.
- linuxftw 8y agoWe're already there. Younger generation knows little about the web, but they all participate in the walled-garden-net via their app store.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoYep. In many places in the world, the internet is Facebook/WhatsApp/YouTube and whatever portal each of your apps allows you to peer into.
- ryandrake 8y agoThis is no different than the late 90s, when the Internet was AOL for a huge number of people. In 20 years it'll surely be some other platform, too, as long as the relatively open "Internet" foundation persists.
- anfilt 8y agoThe concern is those foundations though since google obviously has influence when it comes to it.
- linuxftw 8y agoI think there is an important distinction. Back then, it was all on the PC, which had several hard-fought battles to keep that platform open. Today's main-stream computing platforms (other than PC) are not as open. Replacing the operating system can be impossible. Installing applications outside the designated channels can be impossible. Smartphone manufacturers can and do have absolute control over the software you run on your device. That was not true in the 90s.
- apostacy 8y agoThank you! I feel gaslit even talking about this! Mention this online, and you will get a torrent of people telling you that you must be doing something wrong, and even if it is true Google probably has a good reason that is just beyond our understanding. I just talked about my experience with Chromecast here a few hours ago in another thread. [1] The Google product forums are way worse. It is not reasonable that I should have to do packet injection to not let my Chromecast connect to Google's DNS servers, especially if I just want to watch locally streamed videos. Google has slowly been carving features off of the Chromecast for the last four years. I only use it for local video content, so why must I update when it has burned me in the past? What really kills me is how we wouldn't let Microsoft or Facebook pull this crap. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19171115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19171115
- johnchristopher 8y ago> This should bother people here more than it does. The last thing the Internet needs is even more dependence upon Google. They've made it quite clear through their actions that they're not supporters of a free and open Internet: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l.. https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-l.... Which reminds me of: > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for uncensored Internet access around the world. Among other initiatives, Clinton said the U.S. government will meet next month with network services companies to advance "Internet freedom."... In remarks aimed at the business community, Clinton said companies shouldn't yield to pressure from foreign governments to censor themselves or violate human rights. She urged companies to resist such pressures even if it means losing business in those countries, and argued that a principled stand would be good for business over the long run... Clinton said the State Department will host a meeting in February with network services companies to address the issues around Internet freedom. (from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/hillary-clinton-says-internet-freedom-will-be-us-foreign-policy-priority https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/hillary-clinton-says...) > Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent. https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/01/135519.htm https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/201... Chris Messina, open web advocate at Google at the time, was present (check his website now http://chrismessina.me/b/13865613/leaving-google http://chrismessina.me/b/13865613/leaving-google). edit: damn... almost ten years ago.
- diminoten 8y agoYes, because doing one bad thing erases all good you've ever done...
- kllrnohj 8y ago> The last thing the Internet needs is even more dependence upon Google. This doesn't change that? It's a google streaming device that in order to function at all requires a connection to google's data centers. Why does it matter if that connection happens via 8.8.8.8 or some other IP resolved by a different DNS server? What is the actual, practical difference of that? It's still connecting to Google in order to provide the singular feature of the device. And if you didn't want that, then don't buy the product? It's not exactly surprising that an internet streaming stick requires connecting to the product's cloud services, is it? If they hardcoded some other google IP and it wasn't a DNS server at all, would that still bother you to the same degree? Would you still be ranting about a "free and open internet"? If not, then your objections in this case are probably misguided to say the least. Because this is really just an implementation detail of the Cast device connecting to the Cast servers. It doesn't change your privacy. It doesn't change the shape of the internet. It doesn't change anything significant. And if you really, desperately care for some reason you can route 8.8.8.8 wherever you want. Otherwise by blocking 8.8.8.8 you're breaking the free & open nature of the internet. You've done the thing you're ranting against and censored the internet.
- calibas 8y agoI never suggested blocking 8.8.8.8, I'd think you're replying to the wrong comment but you directly quoted part of mine. I criticize Google and I get called a hypocrite for things I never said...
- pishpash 8y agoYou're missing the part where 8.8.8.8 is a Google service for which an open, internet service already exists. If whatever Google's data centers are providing (besides 8.8.8.8) for the device's features also already had open implementations, then yes, the same complaint could be levied. By replacing parts of the internet that were open with non-open solutions, the intent and the consequence are clear. But I will say that that bridge has been crossed long ago. 8.8.8.8 has been hardcoded in so many places today that it may as well be a fixture of the internet, like the search thing, like many other properties of Google that are maybe not monopolies but are 80% of one. There is no internet that does not depend on Google (except in certain Firewalled countries). It's already too late.
- ehsankia 8y agoI agree with most your points, but trying to make a connection between "exploration of bringing Google services to China" and "supporting free and open Internet" feels like a huge stretch to me. Let's ignore the fact that every other tech company such as Microsoft and Apple are in China, and the fact that Google already does censor content in most other countries. Let's also ignore all the other things Google does for OSS and the web. I'm just amazed at all the random places people manage to bring up and force their disagreement about Dragonfly into any discussion around Google.
- calibas 8y agoYou can't create tools for censorship in China and support a free and open Internet. Those things are completely opposed to each other. Pointing out the actions of other companies, the good things Google has done, or the fact that they censor content in most countries doesn't negate that fact. Those are just mediocre argumentative tactics to try and downplay a public relations disaster. We're not even dealing with the same Google from 9 years ago. Here's some good reading for everyone about how Google went out of it's way to protect Chinese dissidents and refused to comply with the Chinese government. Now they're doing the opposite: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
- johncolanduoni 8y ago> You can't create tools for censorship in China and support a free and open Internet. Those things are completely opposed to each other. I don't see why Google wouldn't actually prefer if China didn't have such draconian restrictions. At the very least it would reduce their regulatory compliance work in China drastically.
- ehsankia 8y ago> You can't create tools for censorship in China and support a free and open Internet What does following local laws of one specific country have to do with the open global internet? You do realize that Chinese internet is already behind a firewall, and is not open, right? > Google went out of it's way to protect Chinese dissidents And we have absolutely facts about what they were working on with Dragonfly, except leaks from a source which was very clearly biased against the project. For all we know, they were coming up with new tech that allowed them to provide services to Chinese citizen while still protecting them. That to me makes much more sense as to why they were considering re-entering, than the baseless "they were only doing it for the money" reasoning.
- StreamBright 8y agoI am not sure we really dependent on Google. The exodus has already started to abandon surveillance capitalism entirely and it will only accelerate with GDPR and other means that states are pushing back on these companies.
- _bxg1 8y agoLast year I ditched Android and unplugged my Chromecasts. Google's no longer not-being-evil, and I want nothing more to do with them.
- kw71 8y agoIt's ridiculous that android devices ignore the dns server my dhcp gives, too.