[HN Gopher] Equipping backbone networks with DNS resolution infr...
___________________________________________________________________
Equipping backbone networks with DNS resolution infrastructures
Author : nixass
Score : 138 points
Date : 2022-01-19 12:40 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hadea.ec.europa.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (hadea.ec.europa.eu)
| jhoelzel wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > blockchain
|
| I agree - DNS is the second best use case for blockchain [1] to
| money.
|
| [1] https://handshake.org/
| izzytcp wrote:
| Cough. The Great Firewall. Cough.
| axegon_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| toyg wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Then the EU shouldn't invest any money. Cause if you
| can't improve the situation, stop wasting money on it.
| toyg wrote:
| 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]
| wongarsu wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| varispeed wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| emteycz wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| samhw wrote:
| I don't think every spelling correction has to be taken
| as an attack, as is implicit in your comment. I'm glad to
| have people correct me when I'm wrong, since it makes me
| better at whatever I'm doing. It seems to me what's
| unhelpful is not correction, but the feeling that one
| must always be correct, that there's no room for growth.
|
| That being said, I think it's absolutely fair enough for
| the parent commenter not to know that. Their English is
| certainly better than my Czech. For Americans - divided
| by a common language - it's a more bewildering (and
| bewilderingly common) mistake.
| ralph84 wrote:
| English is defined by usage. If enough people make the
| same "mistake", it's not a mistake.
| samhw wrote:
| Haha, yes, we're not nearly at that point yet. It's not
| quite _that_ common...
| teh_klev wrote:
| Oh I didn't see it as an attack, just not that necessary.
| Also I'm based in Scotland and english is my first
| language, but I've learned to relax a bit as I get older,
| even with Americans and their torturing of the language
| :)
| samhw wrote:
| > You're wrong about the EU, the setup you're talking
| about is long gone
|
| Sure, the EU might have more authority than you would
| like, or more than it used to, but 'government' has a
| specific meaning - and the EU is not that.
|
| The EU doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force. It
| can make regulations, and countries may follow them for
| whatever reason, but ultimately their regulations have no
| more intrinsic force than me saying "I command that
| everyone wear clogs on the bus".
|
| I can see that your comment tries to trace the EU's
| regulations back down to some meaningful authority over
| the sovereign countries, and stops at 'made to pay fines
| in an EU court'. 'Made' is doing a lot of work here.
| There is nothing 'making' the countries pay those fines,
| besides a desire to stay on good terms within the EU.
|
| Again, I too can issue the country of Italy a fine, and
| they may even choose to pay it if they sufficiently value
| their relationship with me, but that doesn't represent
| legal authority. Compare it with what happened to
| southern states during Reconstruction, or in the 1960s
| when they tried to refuse the federal government's
| directive to integrate schools. Indeed, compare Brexit
| with the American Civil War. _Monopoly on the use of
| force within a certain territory._
|
| This is a fascinating topic, and a very subtle one, but
| it's more interesting to think about if you go at it
| without an axe to grind.
|
| > I'm Czech, not American. My native language doesn't use
| "the" or "a" at all. I'll watch my English better.
|
| Ah, fair enough. It's mostly Americans who do it, and
| they have no such excuse, haha.
| emteycz wrote:
| As far as I know, no definition of "government" requires
| it to have monopoly on force. A "state" as defined by
| Weber should have it, but Weber's own definition says
| governments and states are separate things - especially
| in a multi-layered system like the EU (Wikipedia lists ht
| tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Iroquois_Confederacy
| as an example of this situation).
| jyounker wrote:
| I think that cat is already out of the bag.
| gypsyharlot wrote:
| 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.
| sabjut wrote:
| The entire point of the EU is to form consensus for the
| betterment of Europe. Different opinions are important but
| create friction. Agreement, yes sometimes against ones own
| opinion, is necessary to strengthen the EU. Individuals in an
| alliance that regularly strive against agreements and
| consensus are hurting the alliance, hurting Europe.
|
| If consensus is apparently not desired we can go back to the
| European patchwork where the rules change significantly every
| 100km and doing trade is 10x harder.
| toyg wrote:
| Sadly the UK took that hit for the others, making the
| disadvantages of leaving very clear. So these guys will
| continue staying in the tent while pissing inside of it,
| sadly. But sooner or later a reckoning will happen, either
| in Europe or in their own countries.
| loriverkutya wrote:
| If the opinions are homophobic as they are in case of
| Hungary, I'm very happy that the EU is "bullying". I wish it
| would also be the case with the ongoing corruption in
| Hungary.
| jyounker wrote:
| Ah yes, opinions like "promotion of homosexuality or other
| disorders of sexual behavior" should be punished with up to
| eight years in prison. (A proposed amendment to the Hungarian
| constitution.)
|
| Or opinions such as the government take-over of all
| independent broadcasters in Poland.
| samhw wrote:
| I mean, hey, SCOTUS decided in _Citizens United_ that
| political donations were constitutionally protected
| expressions of opinion, so all bets are off...
| [deleted]
| ricardobeat wrote:
| What "opinions" do Hungary and Poland hold?
| mrtksn wrote:
| "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.
| sabjut wrote:
| You can check for your self in the username of your parent
| comment, which includes a racial slur. This specific slur
| is common in Hungary so make of that what you will when
| judging the amount of bias in that comment.
|
| On a side note I am not sure if that username complies with
| HN TOS.
| [deleted]
| Muromec wrote:
| hating on gays, muslims and separation of judiciary from
| executive are definitely opinions
| samhw wrote:
| 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-t...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > everyone with different opinions, like Hungary and Poland
|
| The human rights of LGBT people and refugees or the right to
| freedom of the press or to a fair trial in front of an
| independent court are valid _EU wide_ , guaranteed by the
| contracts that Hungary and Poland signed when they joined the
| EU.
|
| Opposing these human rights is not an "opinion", it's an
| assault on the core values that make up the European Union -
| and the rest of the EU (particularly Germany, given that the
| former Chancellor's party was a sister party of the Fidesz
| for a long time!) has stayed silent for far too long.
| 5736uhhdohr wrote:
| That doesn't sound like good news at all. Anything that makes
| the internet easier to censor and control is very bad news.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| teekert wrote:
| 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).
| laszlokorte wrote:
| 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
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fire_Raisers_(play)
| LeanderK wrote:
| 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.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| 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.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| 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.
| vidarh wrote:
| Unless they go full on Great Firewall and block VPNs all
| they'd achieve is to make VPNs go even more mainstream (and
| while many adults may still not be used to VPNs, they can ask
| their kids - most of my sons friends all have VPNs set up for
| everything from evading region blocks for content to ban
| evasion from game servers)
| azernik wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| azernik wrote:
| It is trivial to circumvent.
|
| And countries and ISPs still do it all the time, because
| most consumers are not capable of even the trivial step
| of changing DNS servers. e.g. in the UK blocking is
| usually just implemented by DNS filter.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| The way I read it, the proposal is that ISPs and other
| providers of recursive resolvers _MAY_ implement "value-
| added" filtering services. I didn't see anything about some
| central filtering agency that had the power to force some
| filter-package into every recursive resolver in the EU.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Pardon my ignorance but in what way are EU citizens dependent
| on US DNS infrastructure prior to the introduction to this? And
| how does this infrastructure remove that dependence?
| Medowar wrote:
| All big public DNS Resolvers are US-based. Google,
| Cloudflare, OpenDNS(Cisco). Quad9 is Swiss-based, so
| technicaly not EU-based.
| IiydAbITMvJkqKf wrote:
| All ISPs in my country run their own recursive resolvers
| (with IPs resolving to my country). How "big" a resolver is
| does not matter at all - it's not a social network; the
| resolver either works or it doesn't work.
|
| Some of the root servers are also in the EU, so there is
| zero dependence on the USA for resolving european ccTLDs.
| plainnoodles wrote:
| There is some level of importance in bigness. All the
| major public resolvers let nameserver operators (well,
| anyone, really) clear cached records. Which turns out to
| be a not-uncommon occurrence. I wrote my own DNS server,
| so I've been paying a ton of attention to this stuff, and
| I've found several scenarios where website operators
| (even, for instance, instagram!) seem to have wanted to
| change some DNS records but weren't happy with the TTLs
| they'd advertised on them, and instead of waiting them
| out, just cleared caches with the major resolvers and
| then gone ahead and turned off the old IPs.
|
| With the end result that I had to go in and remove those
| records from my cache, too.
| goodpoint wrote:
| In _every_ way. The US controls the TLDs and many of the core
| resolvers.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| This doesn't address the tld issue and does it matter if a
| lot of people use US authoritative resolvers? Each domain
| can choose and the protocol isn't biased towards US
| controlled infrastructure.
|
| I can see the value in dns as public utility (though one
| I'd be skeptical about using or paying for) but this
| doesn't seem to do what the OP suggests on the US
| independence front because DNS is already independent.
|
| I'd be a lot more understanding of a public email provider
| than DNS to promote a break with US infrastructure.
| toyg wrote:
| Email would be fun. Beyond the rhetoric, a lot of EU
| governments are actually quite tyrannical when it comes
| to intercepting or seizing communications, compared to
| the US.
| emteycz wrote:
| The US doesn't control the national TLDs nor the .eu TLD in
| any way. The core resolvers can be replaced at a moment's
| notice in case of problems.
| gypsyharlot wrote:
| As long as they remain alternatives, it is okay. But given that
| this is the EU, it won't be optional for very long.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I don't think there is much prospect of the EU banning me
| from using my own recursive resolver. And I find it hard to
| see how they might try to enforce it.
| glenstein wrote:
| Pleasantly surprised to see this degree of nuance in top level
| comments.
|
| I do find it very alarming that they want to bake in "lawful
| filtering" and especially alarming that they want to bring in
| "premium and wholesale services."
|
| In the best case scenario, if EU had a record of reasonable
| enforcement or ahead-of-the-curve thinking this might be okay,
| I don't think there's anything suggesting that the EU is
| thinking ahead or capable of imagining unintended downstream
| consequences.
|
| I think more DNS is better, which is good, but its balanced
| with some concern.
| easytiger wrote:
| > Provided we can always switch to an alternative DNS servers
| from inside the EU if we need too, it's a net positive.
|
| After the past decade why would you think they will allow that?
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Why would I think they would not?
|
| No matter how many bad things the EU does (and I'm not blind
| to them), after traveling all around the world, working in
| the US, Asia and Africa, it's still the place where I feel
| the most free.
|
| I trust them much more to not go complete bonkers than
| Russia, the USA or China.
|
| In fact, the GPRD, the right for repair and the various
| attacks at tracking are quite to my liking.
|
| I'm not ruling out the possibility they mess it up, but I
| stay optimist.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| > 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
| bambataa wrote:
| > - we get more control over our little part of the internet in
| case of digital attack
|
| I'd love to hear what people think about this. To me it's
| notable that Russia and China have taken steps to separate
| their internet access from the wider, global network. While the
| West continues to centralise its network access in the hands of
| a few companies. Presumably this makes Russia and China more
| protected from attacks on the global network.
|
| Am I correct in thinking in this way? Could Russia and China
| continue with internal internets even if the global one went
| down, or are they actually as at risk as anyone else? I'm
| guessing that China's censorship systems and firewalls are
| fairly centralised and so vulnerable in their own way.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Presumably this makes Russia and China more protected from
| attacks on the global network._
|
| Of course. And North Korea is probably more protected against
| terrorist attacks than most of the "free world". That doesn't
| mean it's a good trade-off in general.
|
| In practical terms, it depends on what you mean "continue
| with their internal internets". Most of the points of failure
| for "internet use as understood by the public", are actually
| just implementation mistakes by private companies - i.e.
| nobody says you have to host on (and hence go down with) AWS,
| or rely on (and hence go down with) Facebook/Google Login.
|
| DNS is distributed (it's in the name!); if rootservers went
| down there would be hiccups for sure, but they could be
| fixed. Same for the rest of the fundamental network stack;
| after all, the internet was built to withstand nuclear
| attack. Whether it would be a good experience (i.e. slow,
| private services not working, etc), that's something else. If
| you're based in China and you rely on FB Login, no amount of
| governmental infrastructure will help you when FB becomes
| unreachable.
| bambataa wrote:
| I'm thinking about fairly close to doomsday scenarios.
|
| If/when we reach a point of extreme tension with tit for
| tat cyber attacks, would Western countries be totally
| incapacitated for days or weeks while Russia or China were
| less impacted? Things like food supply, public services
| etc.
|
| Perhaps such things would escalate so quickly that the
| internet would be the least of our worries.
| throw7 wrote:
| The EU got us cookie popups all over the web that you can't even
| simply answer no to. No thanks.
| sofixa wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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/). 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 wrote:
| Proven wrote:
| nixass wrote:
| English version https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/calls-
| proposals/equipping-backbon...
| easytiger wrote:
| No thanks
| ricardobeat wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| My knee-jerk reaction is "cookie banners"
| Avamander wrote:
| Cookie banners or GDPR consent banners are the embodiment of
| malicious compliance.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 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.
| wongarsu wrote:
| 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
| anshumankmr wrote:
| The EU is on a roll today with some really drastic changes in
| such a short span.
| easytiger wrote:
| what were the others?
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Apparently banning Google Analytics (though it seems like
| keeping data in the US was the problem, not the analytics
| itself)
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Will this lead to non-US/ICANN managed .com/.net etc TLDs? Or a
| new TLDs?
| mjepronk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 ;-)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-19 23:02 UTC)