5 ms·
The relation between DNS and internet is the same as between a boot protocol and computer. By taking a control over DNS, Google usurps the power and makes the
by garganzol 6y ago
The relation between DNS and internet is the same as between a boot protocol and computer.
By taking a control over DNS, Google usurps the power and makes the open web a walled corporate franchise of its own.
In other words, Google steals the open web from the world. It injects a proprietary Trojan horse in disguise of security and established a total dictating power, deciding on what can be published on the web and what cannot.
The choice of timing speaks by itself as well. A pandemic is a great mud water to pull the trick like that.
Didn't you get enough stories about unwarranted pullouts of apps from Google Store? Website pullouts are the subject of the nearest future if we allow that to happen.
The community should boycott centralized DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) approach as it clearly stays in the way of Open Internet was originally designed. DoH leads to a totally centralized, usurped, greed-driven future controlled by a single corporate entity.
This should also bring the closest attention of anti-monopoly committees around the world.
I know that not all people can grasp the danger DoH brings today, but this is a very dangerous development that may lead to disastrous consequences for communities around the world. Internet as we know it may just die.
- techntoke 6y agoGoogle isn't taking control of DNS. That will still be up to the user, and like Firefox, I expect it to be configurable too. Mozilla already implemented and is using DNS-over-HTTPS. That is why I find the Google hate to be semi-manufactured. Cases like this, it makes no sense to argue against something like this. Even if I was running my own DNS server, I would still want to use DNS-over-HTTPS in my own setup. I'm all for decentralizing DNS and the web as a whole, but does that mean that I am going to advocate against better centralized security because of it? Absolutely not, especially when a majority of users don't have access to decentralized DNS today.
- bzb3 6y agoThis is literally what Firefox did and it was widely applauded.
- garganzol 6y agoAnother thing that Firefox (Mozilla) does is absorbing millions of bucks from Google on yearly basis. Oh well, that's not a cartel. Mind you.
- sneak 6y agoDoH is a huge upgrade over unencrypted DNS. Google offering DoH (amongst others) is no more a danger to web censorship than their deployment of the Google Public DNS (8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4). Where was the outrage then? It's tiresome seeing the same FUD over and over again each time DoH comes up, whether Google, Cloudflare, or whoever. This is religion, not science. Did the rlogin/telnet people suffer so when ssh was introduced?
- garganzol 6y agoNot true. Publc DNS is opt-in. Pushing DNS with the browser is lock-in. So who spreads the FUD then? Google and Mozilla combined effort (read Collusion) pushing this further warrants a thorough investigation.
- sneak 6y agoUse of a specific browser is also opt-in (unless you are using an iPhone).
- ac29 6y agoGoogle has run free, open access, uncensored DNS for over a decade. What makes you think DoH in specific is indication of some nefarious plot to start censoring DNS? Whats in it for Google?
- garganzol 6y agoPublic DNS is opt-in. DoH in browser tied to specific list of servers is lock-in. Some people argue that there will be an option for that. However the right solution is to make that decision at OS level.
- ac29 6y agoOK, lets assume DoH is locked to not just a list of servers, but one server: Google's. Whats in it for them to start censoring DNS? Or is the argument that they will lock it in to your ISP's DNS server (autodetected, somehow), and your ISP will be evil (this is hardly a stretch of the imagination)? In this case, again, whats in it for Google?