8 ms·

Equipping backbone networks with DNS resolution infrastructures

143 points by nixass 5y ago

nixass 5y ago
English version https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/calls-proposals/equipping-backbone-networks-high-performance-and-secure-dns-resolution-infrastructures-works_en https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/calls-proposals/equipping-backbon...
toyg 5y ago
Good news (more infrastructure in the critical sphere is always welcome) but the real endgame is buried deep down: > 12. Lawful filtering: Filtering of URLs leading to illegal content based on legal requirements applicable in the EU or in national jurisdictions (e.g. based on court orders), in full compliance with EU rules. But yeah, it's the sort of thing that it's better done at EU level rather than in 27 different, weak and uncoordinated ways. Offices and schools would be very happy to use it, I bet.
- kiidev 5y ago
  What about? > 5. Premium and wholesale services: Provide opt-in paid premium services for enhanced security (e.g. ad hoc filtering, monitoring, 24x7 support), tailored to specific sectorial needs (e.g. cloud, finance, health, transport), as well as wholesale resolution services for other digital service providers, including ISPs and cloud service providers.
  - salzig 5y ago
    5. and 12. are really concerning. IMHO the EU should invest in a DNS Infrastructure that is resilient to censoring (copyright or political) and operate it as non profit. Edit: to be clear, non profit doesn't mean it can't charge money, profit shouldn't be a concern/target.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Are we talking about the same EU? The EU does this for censoring and monitoring, not against it - and they're totally open about it too. Google "Zensursula"...
      - salzig 5y ago
        Then the EU shouldn't invest any money. Cause if you can't improve the situation, stop wasting money on it.
        toyg 5y ago
        From the perspective of public accountability, this is a step forward compared to the current status quo - where some countries implement blacklists and some don't, some are accountable and some aren't, etc etc. The EU dns would then work as public registry of such activities, also clarifying and harmonising the bar for acceptable censorship (i.e. opposition activity in Hungary? Not bannable...).
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wongarsu 5y ago
        I would expect quite a lot of resistance to monitoring efforts, even if they are paid opt-ins (which will mostly be used by schools and employers, the same way they already use similar services that do the same). Censoring of illegal content is much less controversial, and already happening to various degrees at the ISP provided DNS servers. You can make good arguments for transparency and oversight by the courts, but that's as far as it usually goes. Hard to argue that illegal things should be publicly accessible.
        5736uhhdohr 5y ago
        It's not at all hard to argue that illegal things should be publicly accessible. I find it impossible to argue that governments should be able to decide what information is publicly accessible. There is no relationship between legality and morality.
  - toyg 5y ago
    I don't see a problem with some commercial element in public services, as long as it's reasonable and transparent. As long as the public mission is still satisfied, it's just a good way to reduce reliance on general taxation. The amount of such services you can provide for DNS is quite limited anyway. Maybe you can guarantee higher QoS on response times where this is critical, but that's about it. Maybe they can make non-EU-based businesses pay to use it.
- emteycz 5y ago
  > But yeah, it's the sort of thing that it's better done at EU level rather than in 27 different, weak and uncoordinated ways. Offices and schools would be very happy to use it, I bet. No, 27 uncoordinated ways means 27 ways of going around. That's better in this case. No government the size of EU should have control of the internet.
  - samhw 5y ago
    For what it's worth, the EU is not a government. There will still be 27 countries implementing it - like browser vendors implementing a spec - and, again much like browser vendors, they won't be doing it in a well-coordinated fashion. It will be rife with <blink>s. (Also, just for future reference, it's _the_ EU. Americans have a habit of doing this, also with the UK, and I don't understand it at all because your country is _the_ US.)
    - emteycz 5y ago
      You're wrong about the EU, the setup you're talking about is long gone - since the Treaty of Lisbon to be specific, ratified over 10 years ago. EU regulations are effective even without any mention in the local law. EU directives must be implemented within the time limit or the state will be sued at the EU court (not local court!) and made to pay fines until it's implemented. Thus, the EU quacks just like a government. > and, again much like browser vendors, they won't be doing it in a well-coordinated fashion. It will be rife with <blink>s Hopefully, but most definitely not simply because "the EU is not a government". It is enough of a government to avert this issue - e.g. see vaccination passports. > (Also, just for future reference, it's _the_ EU. Americans have a habit of doing this, also with the UK, and I don't understand it at all because your country is _the_ US.) I'm Czech, not American. My native language doesn't use "the" or "a" at all. I'll watch my English better.
      - teh_klev 5y ago
        > I'll watch my English better. I think your english is perfectly fine and that "mistake" wasn't worth nitpicking over. We're an international community and we need to let some things go for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
- gypsyharlot 5y ago
  The world's largest bureaucracy (EU) will continue with its bullying of everyone with different opinions. In a worst case scenario, this won't be optional, and they will cancel everyone with different opinions, like Hungary and Poland.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    What “opinions” do Hungary and Poland hold?
    - Muromec 5y ago
      hating on gays, muslims and separation of judiciary from executive are definitely opinions
      - samhw 5y ago
        An opinion is something that can be represented as a proposition about the world. It's the non-factive superclass of a fact: i.e. the structure of a fact, but not requiring/entailing the property of truth. Hatred is not an opinion, it's an emotion. For more information, have a look at this fantastic Buzzfeed article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ludwigwittgenstein/fantastic-ways-to-distinguish-between-sense-and-nonsense https://www.buzzfeed.com/ludwigwittgenstein/fantastic-ways-t...
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      "opinion" is probably the wrong word when we are talking about countries but people in Hungary and Poland seem to favour more nationalistic and conservative politics and have a thing for strong leaders. It's a bit like California v.s. Alabama situation. Also, not limited to Poland and Hungary, it pans along the West v.s. East, so it's like North vs South in the US. For example, EU says you have right to bring your partner to EU. Then Denmark says that you can register a long term relationship and have the full rights without a formal marriage, Poland will say that you need to marry. It also goes beyond the social issues as the strong leaders tend to mangle with the judiciary system to make their ways and EU is really not happy about it. When that happens, the countries get fined and their leaders will bash EU in a similar way like some American politician bash the federal government.
- teekert 5y ago
  I love DNS based filtering because it is so easy to circumvent. Even nontechie friends I just tell to enable dns-over-https in FireFox. Welcome back TPB (which is DNS blocked in my country).
- varispeed 5y ago
  Yes they won't have to depend on private companies to suppress inconvenient content. You will probably never learn about many things in the future.
- smarx007 5y ago
  I am surprised with such sentiments every time I hear them. How do you envision running a server in EU without complying with the EU laws and obeying the court orders?
  - sneak 5y ago
    There's a significant stretch between "running a server [...] complying with the EU laws" and using DNS to do mass censorship. Censorship is abhorrent, and mass, government-mandated censorship even moreso. End to end encrypted DNS resolution (via DoH) needs to be widely deployed. Using unencrypted, unauthenticated protocols in 2022 is madness. DNS is closer to Telnet than it is to the modern web.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    The thing is there's not exactly one unified EU legislation. You would need to abide by the laws and regulations of the country hosting your server, yes. But that country may have regulations that are incompatible with EU laws: for example France's data retention laws are illegal by EU standards (like many other human-rights-infringing laws in France). Then of course i can see valid reasons not to obey unjust laws whether that's in Europe or elsewhere.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > But yeah, it's the sort of thing that it's better done at EU level rather than in 27 different, weak and uncoordinated ways. Sure, let's give Kaczynski and Orban the keys to censoring LGBT content or regime critical media across the entire EU. Sarcasm aside: any kind of censorship infrastructure will get abused sooner or later. No matter if it's criminals, trolls, religious fundamentalists (particularly where it concerns LGBT matters, sex work or gambling) or plain old wannabe dictators.
  - toyg 5y ago
    I reckon the opposite will happen - no single government will be able to implement unreasonable censorship, because there will be a higher bar for accepting blocks. Or are you arguing that Orban and Kaczynski have more control in Bruxelles than at home? Because that's definitely not the case; if anything, they are more isolated at European level than they are in their own countries.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      Yes because countries like France or Germany have such a better record when it comes to censorship! /s Germany famously hunted down Indymedia and tor supporters a few years ago, and privacy-friendly ISP Freifunk had to fight its way through constitutional court. France had trials against alleged contributors to self-organized media outlets (from reseaumutu.info federation, more specifically iaata.info instance), had many many films censored (such as Afrique 50 or La bataille d'Alger), and has strong regulations outlawing critiques of police and/or president. Creating a broader power never results in mitigating power abuse. If anything, it helps it foster by piling on layers of abstraction/bureaucracy which diminish accountability in the long run.
- 5736uhhdohr 5y ago
  That doesn't sound like good news at all. Anything that makes the internet easier to censor and control is very bad news.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  And the next step is that it is mandatory, and they block all other DNS provisioning. And who do the brown shirts then go after next?
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Even if the censorship implications are a bit obvious, it's good that: - we have more alternatives - we add to the global network for resilience - we increase our independence from the USA for something so critical - we get more control over our little part of the internet in case of a digital attack Provided we can always switch to an alternative DNS server from inside the EU if we need to, it's a net positive.
- Shadonototra 5y ago
  > Even if the censorship implications are a bit obvious, it's good that: LOL, sure, we better at the mercy of the american censorship and 'tracking' system
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  There is one problem. If the change in question is related to just having an alternate DNS stucture, that's perfectly fine. Because it doesn't mean users are forced to use it: at any moment, I can force my machine to use any DNS server I choose and it will respect that. However, if they actually implement URL filtering, it might mean something completely different: that IP addresses of SciHub/Libgen will be blocked by the ISPs in the whole of EU no matter DNS server I use. Not all countries would individually agree to that.
  - azernik 5y ago
    I don't know where you're getting that IP-level filtering is the only way to "actually implementing URL filtering" - if they're talking about URL filtering as a feature of a new DNS infrastructure, then the most likely assumption is that they're talking about DNS-level filtering.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      My assumption is based on the fact that DNS-based filtering ("of URLs leading to illegal content") simply doesn't work and is trivial to circumvent both by the client and the server, so the countries that block Libgen&co. do so at the ISP level using IP filtering.
anshumankmr 5y ago
The EU is on a roll today with some really drastic changes in such a short span.
- easytiger 5y ago
  what were the others?
  - anshumankmr 5y ago
    Apparently banning Google Analytics (though it seems like keeping data in the US was the problem, not the analytics itself)
    - jeroenhd 5y ago
      That wasn't a change, it was already illegal. Back in 2020 the data exchange with the US was considered illegal, and only recently did a judge speak out against Google Analytics specifically. This ban also wasn't even by "the EU", it was an Austrian judge following existing EU regulation to rule on a court case.
Chris2048 5y ago
Will this lead to non-US/ICANN managed .com/.net etc TLDs? Or a new TLDs?
- mjepronk 5y ago
  It's a DNS resolver, not an authoritative DNS server. So it's similiar to Google's 8.8.8.8, Cloudflare's DNS resolver, or the DNS resolver that is provided to you by your ISP.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Or like the Unbound recursive resolver that I run here. Unless there are moves to mandate the use of the EU resolver network, then there's nothing to freak out about.
- NKosmatos 5y ago
  Nope, what is described is addition of new DNS servers for EU users with some extra things on top for monitoring and premium services. It's not the intention to create a new parallel/separate internet where new TLDs will exist. Good move from network point of view, good for most users but with a few caveats for more experienced users ;-)
easytiger 5y ago
No thanks
ricardobeat 5y ago
The idea of the internet as public infrastructure is great, but maybe we can keep the decentralization of today? This would put enormous (censoring) power in the hands of government entities.
talolard 5y ago
My knee-jerk reaction is "cookie banners"
- wongarsu 5y ago
  The intention was that sites would rather ease up on the cookies than force everyone to agree to them. Didn't really pan out that way
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Every cookie banner is a middle finger to your privacy. The law says "don't track people without consent" and the data hoarders decided to respond by making your life as difficult as possible. Most websites don't need cookie banners. They choose to make you suffer through them. Take your anger out on those websites, not on sensible legislation.
- Avamander 5y ago
  Cookie banners or GDPR consent banners are the embodiment of malicious compliance.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
izzytcp 5y ago
Cough. The Great Firewall. Cough.
axegon_ 5y ago
Good news, except for one thing: > 12. Lawful filtering: Filtering of URLs leading to illegal content based on legal requirements applicable in the EU or in national jurisdictions (e.g. based on court orders), in full compliance with EU rules. Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of the EU in general, BUT... The heavy bureaucracy is the main reason for it's slow pace with just about everything. With this in mind, point 12 might put a lot of people in a long deadlock.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  I don't necessarily see a problem with it. What it says is "this thing has to follow the law", because such censorship laws already exist across the EU, for better or for worse. It depends on how this is structured though, this might just as well be an attempt by the entertainment industry to extend their reach in blocking torrent sites. Perhaps that take is a little cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised. We'll have to see how this develops to be sure. I, for one, welcome a public European DNS resolver, because it allows the resolver to just focus on being a good resolver without relying on some kind of (usually shady) business model.
jhoelzel 5y ago
yep and we are not going to use them because thats how censorship aparatus are getting started. At some point you accept that the NSA is snooping through my internet history, just because im reminded what the "privacy centered" alternative means. Let sum this up: - dont trust the DNS of your ISP - dont trust the ones from google or microsoft either - same goes for other telecom companies - quad9 has been instructed by law to change their dns servers for some entries which finally lets me have my doubts about cloudflare and co too... IMHO DNS can not be saved. But hey we might finally have a use case for the blockchain ;)
- rasengan 5y ago
  > blockchain I agree - DNS is the second best use case for blockchain [1] to money. [1] https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/
laszlokorte 5y ago
From Biedermann und die Brandstifter (German) [1] (The Fire Raisers) [2] - ... [you gave them] matches?!! - why not? Don't you think, if they were really fire raisers, that they would have brought their own matches? (laughter) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrGmNXjjDNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrGmNXjjDNk [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Raisers_(play) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Raisers_(play)
- LeanderK 5y ago
  I am not sure what you want to imply...but isn't it just a governmental alternative? I would guess that the current dns resolvers are in the hands of a few huge, monopolistic companies like google or cloudflare.
throw7 5y ago
The EU got us cookie popups all over the web that you can't even simply answer no to. No thanks.
- sofixa 5y ago
  It got you knowledge and consent. Cookie popups are malicious compliance by shady sites and vendors, especially those that "you can't even simply answer no to". Blame them, not the EU for bringing them to light ( like you'd blame Coca-Cola for the amount of sugar in their sugary drinks and not the regulator that made them show it front and center).
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    This is correct; the cookie banners are an attempt to annoy the EU into abandoning GDPR. Ain't gonna work - we like GDPR. Just use a cookie-blocker (e.g. the one built into your browser), along with some kind of popup-dismisser (e.g. Super Agent, https://www.super-agent.com/ https://www.super-agent.com/). If your browser is configured to block cookies (third-party, or whatever kind you don't want), then it doesn't matter if the popup-dismisser auto-clicks "Accept". The thing that annoys me more is those US local news-services that outright block access from IPs that they think are within the EU. They aren't pitching their content at a EU audience, so they don't care. But if they're already checking where the visitor's IP is, couldn't they just decline to serve cookies? I think they're just ignorant about GDPR. It's not hard to grok GDPR and comply with it, unless you have a business built around collecting PII. [Edit] Incidentally, I'm not in the EU, since Brexit. That was two years ago - but I'm still blocked from e.g. LA Times.
    - Proven 5y ago
      [dead]
  - Proven 5y ago

143 points by nixass 5y ago

English version https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/calls-proposals/equipping-backbone-networks-high-performance-and-secure-dns-resolution-infrastructures-works_en https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/calls-proposals/equipping-backbon...

toyg 5y ago

Good news (more infrastructure in the critical sphere is always welcome) but the real endgame is buried deep down: > 12. Lawful filtering: Filtering of URLs leading to illegal content based on legal requirements applicable in the EU or in national jurisdictions (e.g. based on court orders), in full compliance with EU rules. But yeah, it's the sort of thing that it's better done at EU level rather than in 27 different, weak and uncoordinated ways. Offices and schools would be very happy to use it, I bet.

kiidev 5y ago
What about? > 5. Premium and wholesale services: Provide opt-in paid premium services for enhanced security (e.g. ad hoc filtering, monitoring, 24x7 support), tailored to specific sectorial needs (e.g. cloud, finance, health, transport), as well as wholesale resolution services for other digital service providers, including ISPs and cloud service providers.
- salzig 5y ago
  5. and 12. are really concerning. IMHO the EU should invest in a DNS Infrastructure that is resilient to censoring (copyright or political) and operate it as non profit. Edit: to be clear, non profit doesn't mean it can't charge money, profit shouldn't be a concern/target.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Are we talking about the same EU? The EU does this for censoring and monitoring, not against it - and they're totally open about it too. Google "Zensursula"...
    - salzig 5y ago
      Then the EU shouldn't invest any money. Cause if you can't improve the situation, stop wasting money on it.
      - toyg 5y ago
        From the perspective of public accountability, this is a step forward compared to the current status quo - where some countries implement blacklists and some don't, some are accountable and some aren't, etc etc. The EU dns would then work as public registry of such activities, also clarifying and harmonising the bar for acceptable censorship (i.e. opposition activity in Hungary? Not bannable...).
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      I would expect quite a lot of resistance to monitoring efforts, even if they are paid opt-ins (which will mostly be used by schools and employers, the same way they already use similar services that do the same). Censoring of illegal content is much less controversial, and already happening to various degrees at the ISP provided DNS servers. You can make good arguments for transparency and oversight by the courts, but that's as far as it usually goes. Hard to argue that illegal things should be publicly accessible.
      - 5736uhhdohr 5y ago
        It's not at all hard to argue that illegal things should be publicly accessible. I find it impossible to argue that governments should be able to decide what information is publicly accessible. There is no relationship between legality and morality.
- toyg 5y ago
  I don't see a problem with some commercial element in public services, as long as it's reasonable and transparent. As long as the public mission is still satisfied, it's just a good way to reduce reliance on general taxation. The amount of such services you can provide for DNS is quite limited anyway. Maybe you can guarantee higher QoS on response times where this is critical, but that's about it. Maybe they can make non-EU-based businesses pay to use it.
emteycz 5y ago
> But yeah, it's the sort of thing that it's better done at EU level rather than in 27 different, weak and uncoordinated ways. Offices and schools would be very happy to use it, I bet. No, 27 uncoordinated ways means 27 ways of going around. That's better in this case. No government the size of EU should have control of the internet.
- samhw 5y ago
  For what it's worth, the EU is not a government. There will still be 27 countries implementing it - like browser vendors implementing a spec - and, again much like browser vendors, they won't be doing it in a well-coordinated fashion. It will be rife with <blink>s. (Also, just for future reference, it's _the_ EU. Americans have a habit of doing this, also with the UK, and I don't understand it at all because your country is _the_ US.)
  - emteycz 5y ago
    You're wrong about the EU, the setup you're talking about is long gone - since the Treaty of Lisbon to be specific, ratified over 10 years ago. EU regulations are effective even without any mention in the local law. EU directives must be implemented within the time limit or the state will be sued at the EU court (not local court!) and made to pay fines until it's implemented. Thus, the EU quacks just like a government. > and, again much like browser vendors, they won't be doing it in a well-coordinated fashion. It will be rife with <blink>s Hopefully, but most definitely not simply because "the EU is not a government". It is enough of a government to avert this issue - e.g. see vaccination passports. > (Also, just for future reference, it's _the_ EU. Americans have a habit of doing this, also with the UK, and I don't understand it at all because your country is _the_ US.) I'm Czech, not American. My native language doesn't use "the" or "a" at all. I'll watch my English better.
    - teh_klev 5y ago
      > I'll watch my English better. I think your english is perfectly fine and that "mistake" wasn't worth nitpicking over. We're an international community and we need to let some things go for the sake of maintaining our sanity.
gypsyharlot 5y ago
The world's largest bureaucracy (EU) will continue with its bullying of everyone with different opinions. In a worst case scenario, this won't be optional, and they will cancel everyone with different opinions, like Hungary and Poland.
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  What “opinions” do Hungary and Poland hold?
  - Muromec 5y ago
    hating on gays, muslims and separation of judiciary from executive are definitely opinions
    - samhw 5y ago
      An opinion is something that can be represented as a proposition about the world. It's the non-factive superclass of a fact: i.e. the structure of a fact, but not requiring/entailing the property of truth. Hatred is not an opinion, it's an emotion. For more information, have a look at this fantastic Buzzfeed article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ludwigwittgenstein/fantastic-ways-to-distinguish-between-sense-and-nonsense https://www.buzzfeed.com/ludwigwittgenstein/fantastic-ways-t...
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    "opinion" is probably the wrong word when we are talking about countries but people in Hungary and Poland seem to favour more nationalistic and conservative politics and have a thing for strong leaders. It's a bit like California v.s. Alabama situation. Also, not limited to Poland and Hungary, it pans along the West v.s. East, so it's like North vs South in the US. For example, EU says you have right to bring your partner to EU. Then Denmark says that you can register a long term relationship and have the full rights without a formal marriage, Poland will say that you need to marry. It also goes beyond the social issues as the strong leaders tend to mangle with the judiciary system to make their ways and EU is really not happy about it. When that happens, the countries get fined and their leaders will bash EU in a similar way like some American politician bash the federal government.
teekert 5y ago
I love DNS based filtering because it is so easy to circumvent. Even nontechie friends I just tell to enable dns-over-https in FireFox. Welcome back TPB (which is DNS blocked in my country).
varispeed 5y ago
Yes they won't have to depend on private companies to suppress inconvenient content. You will probably never learn about many things in the future.
smarx007 5y ago
I am surprised with such sentiments every time I hear them. How do you envision running a server in EU without complying with the EU laws and obeying the court orders?
- sneak 5y ago
  There's a significant stretch between "running a server [...] complying with the EU laws" and using DNS to do mass censorship. Censorship is abhorrent, and mass, government-mandated censorship even moreso. End to end encrypted DNS resolution (via DoH) needs to be widely deployed. Using unencrypted, unauthenticated protocols in 2022 is madness. DNS is closer to Telnet than it is to the modern web.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  The thing is there's not exactly one unified EU legislation. You would need to abide by the laws and regulations of the country hosting your server, yes. But that country may have regulations that are incompatible with EU laws: for example France's data retention laws are illegal by EU standards (like many other human-rights-infringing laws in France). Then of course i can see valid reasons not to obey unjust laws whether that's in Europe or elsewhere.
mschuster91 5y ago
> But yeah, it's the sort of thing that it's better done at EU level rather than in 27 different, weak and uncoordinated ways. Sure, let's give Kaczynski and Orban the keys to censoring LGBT content or regime critical media across the entire EU. Sarcasm aside: any kind of censorship infrastructure will get abused sooner or later. No matter if it's criminals, trolls, religious fundamentalists (particularly where it concerns LGBT matters, sex work or gambling) or plain old wannabe dictators.
- toyg 5y ago
  I reckon the opposite will happen - no single government will be able to implement unreasonable censorship, because there will be a higher bar for accepting blocks. Or are you arguing that Orban and Kaczynski have more control in Bruxelles than at home? Because that's definitely not the case; if anything, they are more isolated at European level than they are in their own countries.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Yes because countries like France or Germany have such a better record when it comes to censorship! /s Germany famously hunted down Indymedia and tor supporters a few years ago, and privacy-friendly ISP Freifunk had to fight its way through constitutional court. France had trials against alleged contributors to self-organized media outlets (from reseaumutu.info federation, more specifically iaata.info instance), had many many films censored (such as Afrique 50 or La bataille d'Alger), and has strong regulations outlawing critiques of police and/or president. Creating a broader power never results in mitigating power abuse. If anything, it helps it foster by piling on layers of abstraction/bureaucracy which diminish accountability in the long run.
5736uhhdohr 5y ago
That doesn't sound like good news at all. Anything that makes the internet easier to censor and control is very bad news.
bradknowles 5y ago
And the next step is that it is mandatory, and they block all other DNS provisioning. And who do the brown shirts then go after next?

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Even if the censorship implications are a bit obvious, it's good that: - we have more alternatives - we add to the global network for resilience - we increase our independence from the USA for something so critical - we get more control over our little part of the internet in case of a digital attack Provided we can always switch to an alternative DNS server from inside the EU if we need to, it's a net positive.

Shadonototra 5y ago
> Even if the censorship implications are a bit obvious, it's good that: LOL, sure, we better at the mercy of the american censorship and 'tracking' system
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
There is one problem. If the change in question is related to just having an alternate DNS stucture, that's perfectly fine. Because it doesn't mean users are forced to use it: at any moment, I can force my machine to use any DNS server I choose and it will respect that. However, if they actually implement URL filtering, it might mean something completely different: that IP addresses of SciHub/Libgen will be blocked by the ISPs in the whole of EU no matter DNS server I use. Not all countries would individually agree to that.
- azernik 5y ago
  I don't know where you're getting that IP-level filtering is the only way to "actually implementing URL filtering" - if they're talking about URL filtering as a feature of a new DNS infrastructure, then the most likely assumption is that they're talking about DNS-level filtering.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    My assumption is based on the fact that DNS-based filtering ("of URLs leading to illegal content") simply doesn't work and is trivial to circumvent both by the client and the server, so the countries that block Libgen&co. do so at the ISP level using IP filtering.

anshumankmr 5y ago

The EU is on a roll today with some really drastic changes in such a short span.

easytiger 5y ago
what were the others?
- anshumankmr 5y ago
  Apparently banning Google Analytics (though it seems like keeping data in the US was the problem, not the analytics itself)
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    That wasn't a change, it was already illegal. Back in 2020 the data exchange with the US was considered illegal, and only recently did a judge speak out against Google Analytics specifically. This ban also wasn't even by "the EU", it was an Austrian judge following existing EU regulation to rule on a court case.

Chris2048 5y ago

Will this lead to non-US/ICANN managed .com/.net etc TLDs? Or a new TLDs?

mjepronk 5y ago
It's a DNS resolver, not an authoritative DNS server. So it's similiar to Google's 8.8.8.8, Cloudflare's DNS resolver, or the DNS resolver that is provided to you by your ISP.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Or like the Unbound recursive resolver that I run here. Unless there are moves to mandate the use of the EU resolver network, then there's nothing to freak out about.
NKosmatos 5y ago
Nope, what is described is addition of new DNS servers for EU users with some extra things on top for monitoring and premium services. It's not the intention to create a new parallel/separate internet where new TLDs will exist. Good move from network point of view, good for most users but with a few caveats for more experienced users ;-)

easytiger 5y ago

No thanks

ricardobeat 5y ago

The idea of the internet as public infrastructure is great, but maybe we can keep the decentralization of today? This would put enormous (censoring) power in the hands of government entities.

talolard 5y ago

My knee-jerk reaction is "cookie banners"

wongarsu 5y ago
The intention was that sites would rather ease up on the cookies than force everyone to agree to them. Didn't really pan out that way
jeroenhd 5y ago
Every cookie banner is a middle finger to your privacy. The law says "don't track people without consent" and the data hoarders decided to respond by making your life as difficult as possible. Most websites don't need cookie banners. They choose to make you suffer through them. Take your anger out on those websites, not on sensible legislation.
Avamander 5y ago
Cookie banners or GDPR consent banners are the embodiment of malicious compliance.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

izzytcp 5y ago

Cough. The Great Firewall. Cough.

axegon_ 5y ago

Good news, except for one thing: > 12. Lawful filtering: Filtering of URLs leading to illegal content based on legal requirements applicable in the EU or in national jurisdictions (e.g. based on court orders), in full compliance with EU rules. Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of the EU in general, BUT... The heavy bureaucracy is the main reason for it's slow pace with just about everything. With this in mind, point 12 might put a lot of people in a long deadlock.

jeroenhd 5y ago
I don't necessarily see a problem with it. What it says is "this thing has to follow the law", because such censorship laws already exist across the EU, for better or for worse. It depends on how this is structured though, this might just as well be an attempt by the entertainment industry to extend their reach in blocking torrent sites. Perhaps that take is a little cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised. We'll have to see how this develops to be sure. I, for one, welcome a public European DNS resolver, because it allows the resolver to just focus on being a good resolver without relying on some kind of (usually shady) business model.

jhoelzel 5y ago

yep and we are not going to use them because thats how censorship aparatus are getting started. At some point you accept that the NSA is snooping through my internet history, just because im reminded what the "privacy centered" alternative means. Let sum this up: - dont trust the DNS of your ISP - dont trust the ones from google or microsoft either - same goes for other telecom companies - quad9 has been instructed by law to change their dns servers for some entries which finally lets me have my doubts about cloudflare and co too... IMHO DNS can not be saved. But hey we might finally have a use case for the blockchain ;)

rasengan 5y ago
> blockchain I agree - DNS is the second best use case for blockchain [1] to money. [1] https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/

laszlokorte 5y ago

From Biedermann und die Brandstifter (German) [1] (The Fire Raisers) [2] - ... [you gave them] matches?!! - why not? Don't you think, if they were really fire raisers, that they would have brought their own matches? (laughter) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrGmNXjjDNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrGmNXjjDNk [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Raisers_(play) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Raisers_(play)

LeanderK 5y ago
I am not sure what you want to imply...but isn't it just a governmental alternative? I would guess that the current dns resolvers are in the hands of a few huge, monopolistic companies like google or cloudflare.

throw7 5y ago

The EU got us cookie popups all over the web that you can't even simply answer no to. No thanks.

sofixa 5y ago
It got you knowledge and consent. Cookie popups are malicious compliance by shady sites and vendors, especially those that "you can't even simply answer no to". Blame them, not the EU for bringing them to light ( like you'd blame Coca-Cola for the amount of sugar in their sugary drinks and not the regulator that made them show it front and center).
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  This is correct; the cookie banners are an attempt to annoy the EU into abandoning GDPR. Ain't gonna work - we like GDPR. Just use a cookie-blocker (e.g. the one built into your browser), along with some kind of popup-dismisser (e.g. Super Agent, https://www.super-agent.com/ https://www.super-agent.com/). If your browser is configured to block cookies (third-party, or whatever kind you don't want), then it doesn't matter if the popup-dismisser auto-clicks "Accept". The thing that annoys me more is those US local news-services that outright block access from IPs that they think are within the EU. They aren't pitching their content at a EU audience, so they don't care. But if they're already checking where the visitor's IP is, couldn't they just decline to serve cookies? I think they're just ignorant about GDPR. It's not hard to grok GDPR and comply with it, unless you have a business built around collecting PII. [Edit] Incidentally, I'm not in the EU, since Brexit. That was two years ago - but I'm still blocked from e.g. LA Times.
  - Proven 5y ago
    [dead]
- Proven 5y ago