Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
warkdarrior | on: Quad9 to exit France
> I think, usually, in those cases it's that people believe the company did not really do anywhere near everything it could - it did the bare minimum it thought it could get away with then seemed shocked it wasn't enough to matter.

Yes, and Quad9 could have done better in the German court case. At a minimum they could have asked users to register and provide proof of residency, and then could have ensured that their DNS service is offered only to registered users.

crote | parent | next
> At a minimum they could have asked users to register and provide proof of residency

This would have been a massive burden to them, and (as we have seen from the ongoing data leaks) a gigantic privacy risk to its users. It would have also been a big overreach, as the German ruling would have mostly impacted non-German users.

zamadatix | parent | next
Let's take this level of user tracking for DNS would be accepted & fine by Germany as well as what folks were thinking was feasible for the company to do as a given, how does it prove the user+ip who registered is the user+ip who submitted the request instead of the place it got proxied? Or malware enabling the same?

If you can solve this for me it would actually help a lot at work :D

loading story #50198669
necovek | parent | next
How would you imagine this could work?

A recursive DNS resolver is identified just by an IP address for your system level DNS resolver to use (eg. in /etc/resolv.conf). Even if you assigned a random, secret IPv6 address for every individual user, they could simply share that with anyone else too. In IPv4, pretty much impossible.

whatevaa | parent | next
User authentication is not a function of DNS. You are requiring an entirely new protocol to be designed. And the nobody will use it.
snake42 | parent
This is an insane take. Where does it stop? Are we going to be tracked and surveilled from every service?
zbentley | root | parent
I’m not defending it and hate it too, but it’s worth remembering that from the perspective of many governments and regulators, the internet is a legally broken Wild West that the law needs to catch up with. Viewed through the lens of legal precedent that balanced privacy/safety/liberty before telecommunications networks, that is true: surveillance was permitted within a very broad set of parameters (by default, even: that’s why we talk about e.g. private residences being protected exceptions to no-privacy-by-default).

Again, I don’t endorse that framing. But that’s where a lot of lawmakers are at. They’re not corrupt or fascists or hysterical about porn or whatever (well, plenty are, but not most). They’re trying to correct what they identify as a dangerously uncontrolled area.