bwoodcock

6 ms·

1.
by bwoodcock 3y ago
And it has its own police, of course. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/fd/c8/c0fdc8612e07d7562b25...
2.
by bwoodcock 3y ago
The safe, legal way to contact everyone is to publish in the commons. Establish prior art and do not claim intellectual property protections for the idea.
3.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/11bzvbe/comment/ja2...
4.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
The most important thing is to raise this to the level of legislation and national policy, so courts are clear that uninvolved third parties, particularly non-profit operators of core Internet infrastructure, cannot be conscripted to the pr
5.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
Quad9 is a public-benefit not-for-profit. Our purpose is to improve privacy and security. What else did you have in mind? Quad9 is special in that it's the only recursive resolver of any size that's not headquartered in the jurisd
6.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
If Quad9 were based in the US, it could just ignore the whole thing. But then, if Quad9 were based in the US, it wouldn't have happened in the first place, because any US court, particularly the US District Court for Northern Californi
7.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
Nope, Quad9 was not started by IBM. It was an internal project of PCH, started in 2014 in response first to European privacy regulators who were being lobbied by Google for a one-off exemption for 8.8.8.8 in the run-up to GDPR implementati
8.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
Hi. I'm on the board of the Quad9 Foundation, if anyone has any questions about all this. But, by and large, the folks commenting in this thread are saying about what I would: when Sony goes after the DNS, AND NOT the site hosting wha
9.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
Hi. I'm with Packet Clearing House, which @elp mentioned. I would second all of their technical advice, but note that PCH is a public-benefit non-profit, so exists to provide service at no cost to governments (ccTLDs) and critical inf
10.
by bwoodcock 4y ago
I'm on the board of directors. If we were going to start blocking anything, I'd know. There are two domain names blocked by legal order in Germany, neither of them actually hosting pirated content. A whole lot of Internet and fr
11.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Hi. Please educate me. What technical details do I have wrong?
12.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
IBM is one of many donors to Quad9, but they have no seat on its multistakeholder governance board. https://quad9.net/about/foundation-council
13.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
They went after Quad9 (and not Google, Cisco, and Cloudflare) because Google, Cisco, and Cloudflare are all still hiding behind the Northern California District Court, where there are no consequences for privacy violations. And the US isn&#
14.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Thank you! Very much appreciated!
15.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
This is dealt with. The domain is no longer blocked. Thanks for reporting it!
16.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Nothing has yet been proposed which is technically possible to comply with, to the best of our knowledge. There has been no mechanism proposed whereby we could be in compliance, nor has anyone proposed a way of meeting the very substantial
17.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Or, the fact that you don't seem to be able to use dig, your loss.
18.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
We don't have any staff based in Germany, and none of us are traveling to Germany until this is settled.
19.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Are you unable to resolve domain names?
20.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
No, actually, uncensoreddns would have been a much softer target for Sony... They're in the EU, while Quad9 is in Switzerland.
21.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
That is not exactly what the blog says. None of us will be traveling to Germany until this is settled.
22.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
There is no censorship. This is an ongoing dispute between a court in Hamburg and a non-profit in Switzerland. When the dispute is eventually settled, Quad9 either will or will not be providing service in Germany. https://quad9
23.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Quad9 does not make money. Quad9 is a public-benefit not-for-profit foundation. It's supported by donations. Which are very much appreciated right now, because German lawyers aren't free.
24.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Within reason. https://www.reuters.com/article/swisscom-court-idUSFWN20M0KT We'll see what happens.
25.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
While our donors appear to be happy to pay for us to contest this, it's very difficult for me to imagine anyone paying what it would cost to implement compliance. We'll see what happens once the dust settles.
26.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Yes, both of the above are correct. In addition, I'd have two years of prison if I entered Germany again, which I normally do relatively frequently, to look after our servers in Frankfurt and Munich and Berlin and Düsseldorf and Dortmu
27.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
The other two large recursive resolvers, Google and Cloudflare, are protected by the District Court of Northern California, and more generally, by US law. Although we didn't find out about it until last Friday, the court documents sho
28.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
Thank you! We hugely appreciate it! If this were just about us, we could have the Swiss courts throw it out, like US courts would, but that would leave the precedent standing and usable against anyone in the EU. So we need to fight this
29.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
No, that's not what the injunction says. It says we have to pay because we were negligent in failing to inspect every web site on every domain that we answer for. To come to an informed determination about whether the web sites contain
30.
by bwoodcock 5y ago
The entire point of this injunction is that it can be applied to people running their own resolvers.

More ›