4 ms·
Reading the suit, it is interesting that it is very much based around the fact that Quad9 already blocks resolution for "malicious" domains, and therefore alrea
by intellirogue 5y ago
Reading the suit, it is interesting that it is very much based around the fact that Quad9 already blocks resolution for "malicious" domains, and therefore already has a censorship process in place. Basically "you're already censoring, one more domain won't hurt."
- felixg3 5y agoI am curious if this also applies to their unfiltered version 9.9.9.10 then.
- adsche 5y agoHm, but they also offer a DNS without the malware filter. Does that imply that they would not have to block "pirate" sites on the unfiltered resolver?
- slim 5y agoWhich makes their argument about "the cost" mostly invalid
- avh02 5y agoyou can also add *.sony.* to that "one more" list. pretty sure there'd be no law against that - wonder if they'd appreciate it though.
- bwoodcock 5y agoThat's the assertion Sony makes, but that doesn't actually make it true. Quad9 doesn't do any blocking, Quad9 relies entirely upon third-party expert malware analysts to define the blocks. Quad9 only decides what _not_ to block. Also, Quad9 blocks the same malware and phishing everywhere, because we don't know who or where users are. So Sony asserts that this is possible, but they certainly don't demonstrate how it could be done, much less who would pay for it.