4 ms·

It's in Options/Preferences > Network Settings > Settings, scroll to the bottom and select Custom from the Use Provider dropdown. I added AdGuard's DNS over HTT

It's in Options/Preferences > Network Settings > Settings, scroll to the bottom and select Custom from the Use Provider dropdown. I added AdGuard's DNS over HTTPS address. https://dns.adguard.com/dns-query https://dns.adguard.com/dns-query

stakhanov 7y ago
Haha. Okay: Actually didn't see it because that one line landed below the fold on my resolution (960px height, fixed taskbar on Windows). Rookie mistake. But also bad UI design if this is actually something that's important and that users should pay attention to. But. (1) There is no informed consent happening here, highlighting to a user, say in Europe, that this would lead to a U.S.-regulated entity knowing a lot about their browsing history. Regular users can't be expected to understand that that is what this setting implies but will think of "DNS over HTTPS" as technical mumbo jumbo that they don't need to pay attention to and that they should keep at default. (2) The dropdown doesn't have any options besides Cloudflare. In order to use the "Other" option, the user would have to research URLs of providers on the Web, which seems like so much friction that few people will do this.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  The dropdown in (2) doesn't have any other options because of the thing you're worried about in (1). Mozilla seeks specifically to contract with DoH operators to secure the operator's consent to protect their users and never do most of the things you're worried they might do. They do NOT want the list to go: Cloudflare Sketchy Valley Company with six months runway and no clear plan how to make a profit The Actual Mob, really Google Great Britain's Ministry of Truth Russian Media Company owned by Vladimir Putin And then have news sites going "Why are all these obviously untrustworthy folks listed?" when the answer would be "Oh we heard that people didn't like the short list of actually trustworthy providers so we added all the other ones that we don't trust too!"
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    In a very long-winded and theatrical way you are making the point that you believe that there are no credible alternatives out there. I believe there are. I believe that, as soon as any company puts their HQ and their servers in Europe they have a credibility-advantage over cloudflare right there on the legal front and on regulatory oversight. I also don't believe that Mozilla has the ability to greatly influence the way Cloudflare would run their service, given that they're probably not paying a lot (or anything at all; don't know the particulars), and are unlikely to be a major component of Cloudflare's revenue. Cloudflare has much more to lose by picking a fight with the U.S. government (think government surveillance) or by pissing off major advertising networks and media corporations (think surveillance capitalism) who make up the lion's share of their revenue on Cloudflare's core webcaching business.

stakhanov 7y ago

Haha. Okay: Actually didn't see it because that one line landed below the fold on my resolution (960px height, fixed taskbar on Windows). Rookie mistake. But also bad UI design if this is actually something that's important and that users should pay attention to. But. (1) There is no informed consent happening here, highlighting to a user, say in Europe, that this would lead to a U.S.-regulated entity knowing a lot about their browsing history. Regular users can't be expected to understand that that is what this setting implies but will think of "DNS over HTTPS" as technical mumbo jumbo that they don't need to pay attention to and that they should keep at default. (2) The dropdown doesn't have any options besides Cloudflare. In order to use the "Other" option, the user would have to research URLs of providers on the Web, which seems like so much friction that few people will do this.

tialaramex 7y ago
The dropdown in (2) doesn't have any other options because of the thing you're worried about in (1). Mozilla seeks specifically to contract with DoH operators to secure the operator's consent to protect their users and never do most of the things you're worried they might do. They do NOT want the list to go: Cloudflare Sketchy Valley Company with six months runway and no clear plan how to make a profit The Actual Mob, really Google Great Britain's Ministry of Truth Russian Media Company owned by Vladimir Putin And then have news sites going "Why are all these obviously untrustworthy folks listed?" when the answer would be "Oh we heard that people didn't like the short list of actually trustworthy providers so we added all the other ones that we don't trust too!"
- stakhanov 7y ago
  In a very long-winded and theatrical way you are making the point that you believe that there are no credible alternatives out there. I believe there are. I believe that, as soon as any company puts their HQ and their servers in Europe they have a credibility-advantage over cloudflare right there on the legal front and on regulatory oversight. I also don't believe that Mozilla has the ability to greatly influence the way Cloudflare would run their service, given that they're probably not paying a lot (or anything at all; don't know the particulars), and are unlikely to be a major component of Cloudflare's revenue. Cloudflare has much more to lose by picking a fight with the U.S. government (think government surveillance) or by pissing off major advertising networks and media corporations (think surveillance capitalism) who make up the lion's share of their revenue on Cloudflare's core webcaching business.