5 ms·

Before, my ISP could gather the domains I visit by DNS. Now, they can still gather them from the IP addresses and SNI, and Cloudflare can gather them from DNS.

Before, my ISP could gather the domains I visit by DNS. Now, they can still gather them from the IP addresses and SNI, and Cloudflare can gather them from DNS. I'm really struggling to see how this isn't a reduction in privacy. > Mozilla has a strong Trusted Recursive Resolver (TRR) policy in place that forbids CloudFlare or any other DoH partner from collecting personal identifying information. To mitigate this risk, our partners are contractually bound to adhere to this policy. What happens if they get a FISA warrant? How does your contract protect users that before didn't have their DNS queries sent to US companies?

diffeomorphism 7y ago
Your ISP can gather them with much, much more effort. There is privacy value in making things harder. The only motivation your ISP has for logging this is making money; if getting the information is too tedious and expensive why would they bother? > and Cloudflare can gather them from DNS but is contractually forbidden from saving that information. > What happens if they get a FISA warrant? They have to follow the law? Wrong threat model.
- a-raccoon 7y ago
  > Wrong threat model. You are not permitted to hand-wave corrupt government interception or rubberhosing of civilian data as "wrong threat model." These technologies are central to, and must be focused specifically on, protecting all civilian data from all governments. That is the primary purpose of all privacy systems. Not to protect you from coffee-shop denizens trying to snoop which dating sites you use.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Your ISP is subject to the same FISA warrant threat. If it's one of the large monopoly providers, it's as much a one-stop-shop as Cloudfront is.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Not outside the US. Now unless Mozilla decides to pick a different DoH party for deployment in EU, the problem will come back.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Fair point. I'd meant to add "inside the US". The warrant hypo strongly implies this, though as you note, needn't necessarily. Though outside the US, the NSA doesn't require a FISA warrant to intercept data, nor does it face any US legal restrictions on doing so.
      - dangerface 7y ago
        The internet is as much of a monopoly outside of the US for example Tiscali in Europe. We have the same kangaroo courts when it comes to getting warrants to invade people privacy. At least from a general perspective I don't see a big difference.
        icebraining 7y ago
        But it's not one or the other; an EU court will make a warrant for the ISP traffic data, and an US court for the DNS requests. You become vulnerable to both.
        vsl 7y ago
        1.1.1.1 operates on edges of CloudFlare CDN - EU users will be handled by EU DNS server. And there’s no logging.
        icebraining 7y ago
        Cloudflare is still a US company. Do you have any FISA jurisprudence showing that simply running the server on another country makes it immune to warrants? > And there’s no logging. Until the courts say there must be.
- ti_ranger 7y ago
  > The only motivation your ISP has for logging this is making money; if getting the information is too tedious and expensive why would they bother? I used to work at an ISP. We configured (wrote policy language for) our DPI platforms to do header inspection of all HTTPS traffic to measure customer experience to different websites, to improve the customer experience. The raw data was (theoretically) accessible to ~4 people and deleted as soon as ETL had succeeded, and the anonymised results (aggregated only by region, product etc.) were available to the operations team (another ~8) and product management (~4). This complies with our countries personal information regulations. Mozilla proponents seem to be quite anti-ISP. Why is that? >> What happens if they get a FISA warrant? > They have to follow the law? Wrong threat model. If this happens for non-US citizens, this is violation of privacy laws of the affected user. If this is rolled out, I will either ensure my distro switches this off by default, or have to consider changing browsers (away from Firefox).
pixl97 7y ago
Which is why SNI encryption is an important next step.
- mike-cardwell 7y ago
  SNI encryption is only useful if the website you're visiting shares the IP with lots of other websites. E.g, they're sitting behind cloudflare. When you visit any of my websites, which are not on shared IPs, then not only will you continue to inform your ISP that you're doing so (regardless of the existence of ESNI), but you will additionally be informing cloudflare too. What's your solution? That I centralise all my websites behind Cloudflare? In the name or privacy? Laughable.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

Your ISP can gather them with much, much more effort. There is privacy value in making things harder. The only motivation your ISP has for logging this is making money; if getting the information is too tedious and expensive why would they bother? > and Cloudflare can gather them from DNS but is contractually forbidden from saving that information. > What happens if they get a FISA warrant? They have to follow the law? Wrong threat model.

a-raccoon 7y ago
> Wrong threat model. You are not permitted to hand-wave corrupt government interception or rubberhosing of civilian data as "wrong threat model." These technologies are central to, and must be focused specifically on, protecting all civilian data from all governments. That is the primary purpose of all privacy systems. Not to protect you from coffee-shop denizens trying to snoop which dating sites you use.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Your ISP is subject to the same FISA warrant threat. If it's one of the large monopoly providers, it's as much a one-stop-shop as Cloudfront is.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Not outside the US. Now unless Mozilla decides to pick a different DoH party for deployment in EU, the problem will come back.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Fair point. I'd meant to add "inside the US". The warrant hypo strongly implies this, though as you note, needn't necessarily. Though outside the US, the NSA doesn't require a FISA warrant to intercept data, nor does it face any US legal restrictions on doing so.
    - dangerface 7y ago
      The internet is as much of a monopoly outside of the US for example Tiscali in Europe. We have the same kangaroo courts when it comes to getting warrants to invade people privacy. At least from a general perspective I don't see a big difference.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        But it's not one or the other; an EU court will make a warrant for the ISP traffic data, and an US court for the DNS requests. You become vulnerable to both.
        vsl 7y ago
        1.1.1.1 operates on edges of CloudFlare CDN - EU users will be handled by EU DNS server. And there’s no logging.
        icebraining 7y ago
        Cloudflare is still a US company. Do you have any FISA jurisprudence showing that simply running the server on another country makes it immune to warrants? > And there’s no logging. Until the courts say there must be.
ti_ranger 7y ago
> The only motivation your ISP has for logging this is making money; if getting the information is too tedious and expensive why would they bother? I used to work at an ISP. We configured (wrote policy language for) our DPI platforms to do header inspection of all HTTPS traffic to measure customer experience to different websites, to improve the customer experience. The raw data was (theoretically) accessible to ~4 people and deleted as soon as ETL had succeeded, and the anonymised results (aggregated only by region, product etc.) were available to the operations team (another ~8) and product management (~4). This complies with our countries personal information regulations. Mozilla proponents seem to be quite anti-ISP. Why is that? >> What happens if they get a FISA warrant? > They have to follow the law? Wrong threat model. If this happens for non-US citizens, this is violation of privacy laws of the affected user. If this is rolled out, I will either ensure my distro switches this off by default, or have to consider changing browsers (away from Firefox).

pixl97 7y ago

Which is why SNI encryption is an important next step.

mike-cardwell 7y ago
SNI encryption is only useful if the website you're visiting shares the IP with lots of other websites. E.g, they're sitting behind cloudflare. When you visit any of my websites, which are not on shared IPs, then not only will you continue to inform your ISP that you're doing so (regardless of the existence of ESNI), but you will additionally be informing cloudflare too. What's your solution? That I centralise all my websites behind Cloudflare? In the name or privacy? Laughable.