10 ms·

Corporations operate for profit.

by 113 7y ago

tedk-42 7y ago
Indeed - but there are other ways to make money than to sell of your personal information to the highest advertising bidder.
- jgrahamc 7y ago
  Such as, in Cloudflare's case, selling our service (the DDoS protection, the caching, the firewalling etc.) to companies that pay for that service because it helps them. While at the same time working to preserve people's privacy with things like giving out SSL for free, pushing for eSNI, running a public DoH server, building a service that makes sure all data from your phone to us is encrypted etc. etc.
  - denton-scratch 7y ago
    "like giving out SSL for free" The market rate for standard SSL certs is zero.
    - jgrahamc 7y ago
      It wasn't in 2014 (https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-universal-ssl/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-universal-ssl/) when we launched it.
  - cnst 7y ago
    It's been shown that Cloudflare's DoH service is a lot ado about nothing, and is actually worse for privacy, not better: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071022 Likewise for 1.1.1.1 — when taking into consideration the local caching appliances that the ISPs have invested in, the lack of ECS would make the clients go all the way through the internet for the same content that's already cached locally by the ISP for users of all other decent resolvers — this will only contribute to increased costs for the individual ISPs, extra latency for users, and more competitive advantage of your products due to you diminishing the technological advantages of your competitors, without regard to the actual user experience of the users, or the reliability and scaling of the internet infrastructure at large. Not to mention that such Netflix/YouTube usage, when going directly through transit providers and through the whole internet, would also subject the users to a greater chance of surveillance at large compared to users of resolvers that would access local copies on the caching appliance.
    - pixl97 7y ago
      Except in the US the ISPs are some of the biggest surveillance organizations themselves. They are also highly monopolized so most people in the US are on one of a very small number of ISPs
      - zrm 7y ago
        Which is a good argument for not using your ISP's DNS either, but those are not the only two options. One of the better alternatives is to get a VPN you trust that puts multiple users behind the same IP address and then operate your own recursive DNS from behind there. The VPN service itself could still log your queries, but at least they have plenty of competitors, and you chose one you trust, right? Or if you don't want to trust any one party, use Tor.
    - andreareina 7y ago
      It has been argued, I wouldn't say that it has been shown. Both my ISPs operate a DNS blacklist. So did my previous ISPs, in the country I previously lived in. And in a third country, where I was on holiday. ISPs even in the USA are gnashing their teeth at the prospect of losing visibility into DNS. Why would they care if they weren't using that data? Why do they need a subscriber -> [domain] mapping? Routing tables don't care about domain names. Edge caching of web content doesn't work with https. I might care about DNS caching if the ISPs haven't demonstrated time and again that they will abuse my privacy for a buck, after I've already paid them for the privilege. I trust Cloudflare much more than I trust any ISP I've had to deal with, including American ISPs when I lived there. I trust Google much more than any ISP, and I'm not particularly charitable towards Google. Centralized DoH isn't perfect, but it's better than the status quo. The SNI hole is shrinking. My threat model does not include defending against the Mossad doing Mossad things with my email^H^H^H^H^HDNS[1]. [1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf
  - tomp 7y ago
    If you're trying to preserve people's privacy, why doesn't the 1.1.1.1 VPN service also mask originating IP?
    - jgrahamc 7y ago
      Warp isn't trying to "hide your IP from the sites you are visiting". It's there to help prevent intermediaries from observing your traffic. A huge percentage of the web is still unencrypted HTTP. And Warp+ aims to be about that plus performance. If you want to be totally anonymous on the Internet then I recommend you use Tor. If you just use a VPN then you may hide your IP address from sites you visit but there are tons of other fingerprinting techniques that can be used.
      - tomp 7y ago
        I understand all that, and you didn't answer my question. Why do you push the narrative that 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver protects user privacy (by hiding originating IP / subnet) whereas 1.1.1.1 VPN gladly reveals that data? In both cases, the destination is hidden to any eavesdroppers, but in the latter case (VPN) the source IP is visible to the destination website, whereas you keep insisting how vital it is to hide source IP in the former case (DNS).
        jgrahamc 7y ago
        In the case of Warp, we add the connecting IP information as a header to the HTTP request for sites on Cloudflare. This will typically be inside TLS to the origin server, and so the source IP information will be encrypted and only visible to the web site being visited. In the case of DNS information about the subnet, the query etc. is sent around unencrypted. One is open to eavesdropping, the other is not.
        zzzcpan 7y ago
        Someone capable of eavesdropping on that query sure as hell capable of eavesdropping on incoming connections to 1.1.1.1 where they can see actual IP address that initiated the query. There is no way to justify this as a privacy feature. Well, unless people don't understand enough to believe you.
nindalf 7y ago
And so you accept the first answer. That’s fine. Cloudflare has repeatedly said that while they operate for profit, they take the long term view. By doing the right thing now, by being privacy focussed, they will be profitable for decades to come. This seems logical to me, which makes the second answer more believable.
- nathanpotter 7y ago
  Do you remember "do no evil"? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Corporations operate for profit.

by 113 7y ago

Corporations operate for profit.

Indeed - but there are other ways to make money than to sell of your personal information to the highest advertising bidder.

jgrahamc 7y ago
Such as, in Cloudflare's case, selling our service (the DDoS protection, the caching, the firewalling etc.) to companies that pay for that service because it helps them. While at the same time working to preserve people's privacy with things like giving out SSL for free, pushing for eSNI, running a public DoH server, building a service that makes sure all data from your phone to us is encrypted etc. etc.
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  "like giving out SSL for free" The market rate for standard SSL certs is zero.
  - jgrahamc 7y ago
    It wasn't in 2014 (https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-universal-ssl/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-universal-ssl/) when we launched it.
- cnst 7y ago
  It's been shown that Cloudflare's DoH service is a lot ado about nothing, and is actually worse for privacy, not better: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21071022 Likewise for 1.1.1.1 — when taking into consideration the local caching appliances that the ISPs have invested in, the lack of ECS would make the clients go all the way through the internet for the same content that's already cached locally by the ISP for users of all other decent resolvers — this will only contribute to increased costs for the individual ISPs, extra latency for users, and more competitive advantage of your products due to you diminishing the technological advantages of your competitors, without regard to the actual user experience of the users, or the reliability and scaling of the internet infrastructure at large. Not to mention that such Netflix/YouTube usage, when going directly through transit providers and through the whole internet, would also subject the users to a greater chance of surveillance at large compared to users of resolvers that would access local copies on the caching appliance.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Except in the US the ISPs are some of the biggest surveillance organizations themselves. They are also highly monopolized so most people in the US are on one of a very small number of ISPs
    - zrm 7y ago
      Which is a good argument for not using your ISP's DNS either, but those are not the only two options. One of the better alternatives is to get a VPN you trust that puts multiple users behind the same IP address and then operate your own recursive DNS from behind there. The VPN service itself could still log your queries, but at least they have plenty of competitors, and you chose one you trust, right? Or if you don't want to trust any one party, use Tor.
  - andreareina 7y ago
    It has been argued, I wouldn't say that it has been shown. Both my ISPs operate a DNS blacklist. So did my previous ISPs, in the country I previously lived in. And in a third country, where I was on holiday. ISPs even in the USA are gnashing their teeth at the prospect of losing visibility into DNS. Why would they care if they weren't using that data? Why do they need a subscriber -> [domain] mapping? Routing tables don't care about domain names. Edge caching of web content doesn't work with https. I might care about DNS caching if the ISPs haven't demonstrated time and again that they will abuse my privacy for a buck, after I've already paid them for the privilege. I trust Cloudflare much more than I trust any ISP I've had to deal with, including American ISPs when I lived there. I trust Google much more than any ISP, and I'm not particularly charitable towards Google. Centralized DoH isn't perfect, but it's better than the status quo. The SNI hole is shrinking. My threat model does not include defending against the Mossad doing Mossad things with my email^H^H^H^H^HDNS[1]. [1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf
- tomp 7y ago
  If you're trying to preserve people's privacy, why doesn't the 1.1.1.1 VPN service also mask originating IP?
  - jgrahamc 7y ago
    Warp isn't trying to "hide your IP from the sites you are visiting". It's there to help prevent intermediaries from observing your traffic. A huge percentage of the web is still unencrypted HTTP. And Warp+ aims to be about that plus performance. If you want to be totally anonymous on the Internet then I recommend you use Tor. If you just use a VPN then you may hide your IP address from sites you visit but there are tons of other fingerprinting techniques that can be used.
    - tomp 7y ago
      I understand all that, and you didn't answer my question. Why do you push the narrative that 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver protects user privacy (by hiding originating IP / subnet) whereas 1.1.1.1 VPN gladly reveals that data? In both cases, the destination is hidden to any eavesdroppers, but in the latter case (VPN) the source IP is visible to the destination website, whereas you keep insisting how vital it is to hide source IP in the former case (DNS).
      - jgrahamc 7y ago
        In the case of Warp, we add the connecting IP information as a header to the HTTP request for sites on Cloudflare. This will typically be inside TLS to the origin server, and so the source IP information will be encrypted and only visible to the web site being visited. In the case of DNS information about the subnet, the query etc. is sent around unencrypted. One is open to eavesdropping, the other is not.
        zzzcpan 7y ago
        Someone capable of eavesdropping on that query sure as hell capable of eavesdropping on incoming connections to 1.1.1.1 where they can see actual IP address that initiated the query. There is no way to justify this as a privacy feature. Well, unless people don't understand enough to believe you.

nindalf 7y ago

And so you accept the first answer. That’s fine. Cloudflare has repeatedly said that while they operate for profit, they take the long term view. By doing the right thing now, by being privacy focussed, they will be profitable for decades to come. This seems logical to me, which makes the second answer more believable.

nathanpotter 7y ago
Do you remember "do no evil"? Pepperidge Farms remembers.