7 ms·

I can't be the only one that thinks this (DNS blocking) is an exceptionally poor solution to this problem. It's essentially whack-a-mole. You either A) don't al

I can't be the only one that thinks this (DNS blocking) is an exceptionally poor solution to this problem. It's essentially whack-a-mole. You either A) don't allow your smart TV ip address to egress traffic to the internet or B) don't connect it at all. There are some domains in that list like the *.cloudfront.net that might change over time.

heavyset_go 5y ago
I agree despite using DNS blocking myself. DNS blocking can easily be mitigated against with DoH or DoT at the application level. It's only a matter of time before advertisers start using either to bypass DNS blocking and serve ads.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I agree despite using DNS blocking myself. DNS blocking can easily be mitigated against with DoH or DoT at the application level. It's only a matter of time before advertisers start using either to bypass DNS blocking and serve ads. DoH/DoT are just the camel's nose under the tent. Just wait (perhaps it's already happening) until TV manufacturers install 4g/5g modems in their devices. At which point, there will be a market for TV-shaped faraday cages. Or not, as that will make actually watching the TV difficult/impossible. This stuff really ticks me off. Grrr!
  - the_snooze 5y ago
    >Just wait (perhaps it's already happening) until TV manufacturers install 4g/5g modems in their devices. I hear this raised every now and then, but is that even feasible economically? Those embedded cell connections are a recurring cost, after all. I'm curious if the per-unit revenue from ads and tracking is large enough to justify the per-unit cost to send/receive that data over a cell connection. Seems like UI nudges and dark patterns to push users into connecting their TVs to their home internet connection would be cheaper and more effective.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      I imagine that, at some point, advertising will pay for the costs of internet connections. I can also imagine companies subsidizing the costs of internet connections just so they can get their hands on data, or to accelerate the business model.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        Companies subsidizing the cost of internet connections is already historic fact. Google fiber, googles project loon, and facebooks India initiative are already examples.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I hear this raised every now and then, but is that even feasible economically? Those embedded cell connections are a recurring cost, after all. That's a great question. If it's not today, it likely will be soon. I think it may be so already. These are niche cases, but the costs aren't so different than TVs: I use a CPAP machine and the one I got six years ago had a cellular modem (as well as WiFi) without my involvement in any mobile account. Thankfully, I was able to disable that (and a big "Fuck you!" to Philips for being such rapacious scumbags). I also got a Kindle as a gift in ~2004 or so and it had both WiFi and a cellular modem with no charges to me. >Seems like UI nudges and dark patterns to push users into connecting their TVs to their home internet connection would be cheaper and more effective. Cheaper? Definitely. Effective? Most likely yes. More effective than a cellular modem? Methinks not so much. A device connecting to a network over which you have no control would be much more effective, IMHO. Aside from a small group of folks who will shoot, stab, defenestrate, bend, fold, spindle or mutilate such a device, most folks would likely just shrug and move on while being forced to watch ads. And more's the pity.
    - AnonC 5y ago
      It’s not just a recurring cost with 4G/5G modems, but it’s also practically infeasible in many countries where getting a cellular connection of any kind requires KYC and related formalities. There’s no way these TV manufacturing companies can buy one connection per TV (and accept the liabilities that come with such a connection) or get their customers to have one. If they do try WiFi to a known hotspot that the company has deployed almost everywhere, that will be a huge cost with very little benefit. If they make the TV into one of those monstrous Alexa Show (?) devices where you can make calls or do other things, they may be able to persuade some customers to get a connection for the TV. Even then it’s a stretch because most TVs are in one place for years and the places they’re in would have WiFi/broadband coverage in the same or a nearby room.
caymanjim 5y ago
You're not wrong, but it is whack-a-mole, and this is one of our hammers.
- Groxx 5y ago
  Part of the problem is that it's a rather terrible, leaky, and easily-worked-around hammer. It mostly only continues to work because they haven't bothered to do simple things to prevent their more technical users from blocking it.
  - assttoasstmgr 5y ago
    I previously had some Roku devices in my house and they immediately went into a restricted VLAN not for the least of reasons that their ToS/privacy policy stated I was agreeing to give them permission to collect data about my network and send it back to them. Whatever that means. Roku devices hardcode 8.8.8.8 DNS in their software. So a Pi-Hole would be useless in a typical config. Evident by the constant hammering of dns.google in my firewall logs (dropped). DNS filtering can only be effective if you intercept/drop all other outbound DNS traffic at the edge of your network.
    - Groxx 5y ago
      Yeah. It's less a hammer and more a strip of "do not cross" plastic ribbon across a freeway. It only works while they play nice, and they probably even breach it accidentally sometimes.
    - dspillett 5y ago
      > Roku devices hardcode 8.8.8.8 DNS in their software. Are they fussy about where responses come from? If not then you can redirect to your local filtering DNS service. If they do "protect" themselves that way then I'll add them to the list of devices that I'll never knowingly connect to my network.
    - syshum 5y ago
      Source for that? I have several Roku devices and they hit my pi.hole all the time

heavyset_go 5y ago

I agree despite using DNS blocking myself. DNS blocking can easily be mitigated against with DoH or DoT at the application level. It's only a matter of time before advertisers start using either to bypass DNS blocking and serve ads.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I agree despite using DNS blocking myself. DNS blocking can easily be mitigated against with DoH or DoT at the application level. It's only a matter of time before advertisers start using either to bypass DNS blocking and serve ads. DoH/DoT are just the camel's nose under the tent. Just wait (perhaps it's already happening) until TV manufacturers install 4g/5g modems in their devices. At which point, there will be a market for TV-shaped faraday cages. Or not, as that will make actually watching the TV difficult/impossible. This stuff really ticks me off. Grrr!
- the_snooze 5y ago
  >Just wait (perhaps it's already happening) until TV manufacturers install 4g/5g modems in their devices. I hear this raised every now and then, but is that even feasible economically? Those embedded cell connections are a recurring cost, after all. I'm curious if the per-unit revenue from ads and tracking is large enough to justify the per-unit cost to send/receive that data over a cell connection. Seems like UI nudges and dark patterns to push users into connecting their TVs to their home internet connection would be cheaper and more effective.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    I imagine that, at some point, advertising will pay for the costs of internet connections. I can also imagine companies subsidizing the costs of internet connections just so they can get their hands on data, or to accelerate the business model.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Companies subsidizing the cost of internet connections is already historic fact. Google fiber, googles project loon, and facebooks India initiative are already examples.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I hear this raised every now and then, but is that even feasible economically? Those embedded cell connections are a recurring cost, after all. That's a great question. If it's not today, it likely will be soon. I think it may be so already. These are niche cases, but the costs aren't so different than TVs: I use a CPAP machine and the one I got six years ago had a cellular modem (as well as WiFi) without my involvement in any mobile account. Thankfully, I was able to disable that (and a big "Fuck you!" to Philips for being such rapacious scumbags). I also got a Kindle as a gift in ~2004 or so and it had both WiFi and a cellular modem with no charges to me. >Seems like UI nudges and dark patterns to push users into connecting their TVs to their home internet connection would be cheaper and more effective. Cheaper? Definitely. Effective? Most likely yes. More effective than a cellular modem? Methinks not so much. A device connecting to a network over which you have no control would be much more effective, IMHO. Aside from a small group of folks who will shoot, stab, defenestrate, bend, fold, spindle or mutilate such a device, most folks would likely just shrug and move on while being forced to watch ads. And more's the pity.
  - AnonC 5y ago
    It’s not just a recurring cost with 4G/5G modems, but it’s also practically infeasible in many countries where getting a cellular connection of any kind requires KYC and related formalities. There’s no way these TV manufacturing companies can buy one connection per TV (and accept the liabilities that come with such a connection) or get their customers to have one. If they do try WiFi to a known hotspot that the company has deployed almost everywhere, that will be a huge cost with very little benefit. If they make the TV into one of those monstrous Alexa Show (?) devices where you can make calls or do other things, they may be able to persuade some customers to get a connection for the TV. Even then it’s a stretch because most TVs are in one place for years and the places they’re in would have WiFi/broadband coverage in the same or a nearby room.

caymanjim 5y ago

You're not wrong, but it is whack-a-mole, and this is one of our hammers.

Groxx 5y ago
Part of the problem is that it's a rather terrible, leaky, and easily-worked-around hammer. It mostly only continues to work because they haven't bothered to do simple things to prevent their more technical users from blocking it.
- assttoasstmgr 5y ago
  I previously had some Roku devices in my house and they immediately went into a restricted VLAN not for the least of reasons that their ToS/privacy policy stated I was agreeing to give them permission to collect data about my network and send it back to them. Whatever that means. Roku devices hardcode 8.8.8.8 DNS in their software. So a Pi-Hole would be useless in a typical config. Evident by the constant hammering of dns.google in my firewall logs (dropped). DNS filtering can only be effective if you intercept/drop all other outbound DNS traffic at the edge of your network.
  - Groxx 5y ago
    Yeah. It's less a hammer and more a strip of "do not cross" plastic ribbon across a freeway. It only works while they play nice, and they probably even breach it accidentally sometimes.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    > Roku devices hardcode 8.8.8.8 DNS in their software. Are they fussy about where responses come from? If not then you can redirect to your local filtering DNS service. If they do "protect" themselves that way then I'll add them to the list of devices that I'll never knowingly connect to my network.
  - syshum 5y ago
    Source for that? I have several Roku devices and they hit my pi.hole all the time