3 ms·
We support strong widely available encryption even though it enables terrorism, weapons dealing, human trafficking, etc. But when it enables the delivery of har
by shawnz 7y ago
We support strong widely available encryption even though it enables terrorism, weapons dealing, human trafficking, etc. But when it enables the delivery of hard-to-block ads, that's too far?
In my opinion it was wrong to go down the path of using DNS for content blocking in the first place. Even without widely available DoH, bypassing dns-based content blocking is trivial.
- JohnFen 7y ago>But when it enables the delivery of hard-to-block ads, that's too far? If I'm aware of terrorism, weapons dealing, human trafficking, etc., traffic on my network, I'd certainly block that. That's a different issue from crypto. Also, I'm not so interested in blocking advertising anyway. I'm interested in blocking unauthorized data leakage (tracking, telemetry, etc.) > In my opinion it was wrong to go down the path of using DNS for content blocking in the first place. It has never been an awesome approach, true, but it's often the only approach available. > Even without widely available DoH, bypassing dns-based content blocking is trivial. Possible, yes. Trivial, no.
- userbinator 7y agoPossibly contrarian opinion: I only support "strongly widely available encryption" that gives the user freedom. I don't support using encryption to create authoritarian "walled garden" prisons or as a "security" excuse to take away freedoms of the user (this includes, among other things, DRM.)