4 ms·

protonmail states they're using Neustar for DDoS protection of their network: https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/email-ddos-protection/ https://prot

by guerby 6y ago

protonmail states they're using Neustar for DDoS protection of their network: https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/email-ddos-protection/ https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/email-ddos-pro... Very few players have the capacity by themselve to handle a large DDoS these days. And I'm not sure when talking about protonmail kind of encryption that Neustar has any special access to keys relative to say Level3, cogent or any transit provider between you and protonmail. But may be I misunderstood your comment?

barrister 6y ago
Not as long as it's understood that I feel Neustar was a poor choice given their line of business.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  Or, they are a great choice. Defense contractors have unique defensive insight, and if properly fire-walled off from their other lines of business, can be of a net benefit. I worked for a British defense contractor, as an American working with the U.S. DoD. We were careful to dot our I's and cross our T's, but over all it worked well.
  - XMPPwocky 6y ago
    Would you say the same thing if it was, say, a Chinese defense contractor?
    - jjcon 6y ago
      No why would you? The US has checks and balances to minimize abuse and keep data requests limited to the national security domain (like most countries in the western world or eyes alliances). The other has no such checks on those powers.
      - AnonHP 6y ago
        Do those "checks and balances" really matter in the light of what we've learned over the last seven years (and even before that)? It doesn't seem like there's much of "minimization" going on from the three letter agencies.
        jjcon 6y ago
        They do matter, completely. Has the data from national security programs ever been used for non-national security purposes (ie in public policing for instance)? It is rare if not unheard of in most western countries. Conversely, it is used all the time for censorship and policing in China. These checks and balances declared the metadata programs unconstitutional. https://www.cnet.com/news/appeals-court-finds-nsas-bulk-phone-data-collection-was-unlawful/ https://www.cnet.com/news/appeals-court-finds-nsas-bulk-phon... Is the system perfect? Not even close, but it does strive to minimize abuse. Plenty of countries here in the EU have national security programs that operate in a similar fashion. The goal shouldn’t be no data collection, it should strive to minimize abuse and keep collection limited to that national security concerns. None of that is true of the programs in China.
        XMPPwocky 6y ago
        "Conversely, it is used all the time for censorship and policing in China." Sure- in China. I'm not in China. Censorship might be a problem, but outside of that, I'd much rather have the Chinese government (and even Chinese local police!) have my metadata, and even data, than give the US national security apparatus the same access. Corporate IP is another exception to this- it's pretty clearly better that the US, rather than China, have access to my work data. But for, say, a Snowden-esque whistleblower in the US- can you really say they'd be better off with, say, DHS having access to all their data instead of the Chinese government? Obviously ideally nobody would, but for them, a system whose failure mode is "China can associate your IP and email address" is, I believe, dramatically better than "DHS/NSA can associate your IP and email address".
        6y ago

by guerby 6y ago

barrister 6y ago

Not as long as it's understood that I feel Neustar was a poor choice given their line of business.

imwillofficial 6y ago
Or, they are a great choice. Defense contractors have unique defensive insight, and if properly fire-walled off from their other lines of business, can be of a net benefit. I worked for a British defense contractor, as an American working with the U.S. DoD. We were careful to dot our I's and cross our T's, but over all it worked well.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  Would you say the same thing if it was, say, a Chinese defense contractor?
  - jjcon 6y ago
    No why would you? The US has checks and balances to minimize abuse and keep data requests limited to the national security domain (like most countries in the western world or eyes alliances). The other has no such checks on those powers.
    - AnonHP 6y ago
      Do those "checks and balances" really matter in the light of what we've learned over the last seven years (and even before that)? It doesn't seem like there's much of "minimization" going on from the three letter agencies.
      - jjcon 6y ago
        They do matter, completely. Has the data from national security programs ever been used for non-national security purposes (ie in public policing for instance)? It is rare if not unheard of in most western countries. Conversely, it is used all the time for censorship and policing in China. These checks and balances declared the metadata programs unconstitutional. https://www.cnet.com/news/appeals-court-finds-nsas-bulk-phone-data-collection-was-unlawful/ https://www.cnet.com/news/appeals-court-finds-nsas-bulk-phon... Is the system perfect? Not even close, but it does strive to minimize abuse. Plenty of countries here in the EU have national security programs that operate in a similar fashion. The goal shouldn’t be no data collection, it should strive to minimize abuse and keep collection limited to that national security concerns. None of that is true of the programs in China.
        XMPPwocky 6y ago
        "Conversely, it is used all the time for censorship and policing in China." Sure- in China. I'm not in China. Censorship might be a problem, but outside of that, I'd much rather have the Chinese government (and even Chinese local police!) have my metadata, and even data, than give the US national security apparatus the same access. Corporate IP is another exception to this- it's pretty clearly better that the US, rather than China, have access to my work data. But for, say, a Snowden-esque whistleblower in the US- can you really say they'd be better off with, say, DHS having access to all their data instead of the Chinese government? Obviously ideally nobody would, but for them, a system whose failure mode is "China can associate your IP and email address" is, I believe, dramatically better than "DHS/NSA can associate your IP and email address".
        6y ago