Last December the Court of Milan ordered Cloudflare to block sites added to Italy's Piracy Shield system. Cloudflare sees itself as a neutral intermediary but increasingly frustrated rightsholders say it should play a more active role by assisting their fight against piracy. A decision issued by the same court now requires Google to poison its Public DNS to prevent access to pirate sites. It was handed down on March 11 without Google being heard in the matter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 99 points 1 day ago (4 children)

He who cares about privacy even a little bit and uses Google DNS servers doesn't really care about privacy.

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago

There are ways to use public dns safely. Specifically by running AdGuard Home which filters domains, then forwards your request.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

what are some good private dns services i can use that are not google? preferrably outside the us?

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 5 points 15 hours ago

Quad9. Swiss based, dnssec available, has beaten blocking orders by Sony before.

They're about as open as resolvers get, and they pretty much released everything they could when courts tried to interfere with them.

This article is basically referencing the same event as OPs article, but after Canal+ expanded the scope of their legal challenge.

[–] HouseWolf@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I know at least one person who said they use Googles DNS because it stopped them getting pissy letters from their ISP.

Some people only care about privacy to the point were they don't see the immediate consequences for their actions.

[–] darkknight@discuss.online 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol what? I'd be curious to know the amount of dns queries required for an ISP to complain about this. I'd think it would have to be massive. Also, unless it's in their TOS, they wouldn't really have to comply. The only downside is if they're the only ISP for the user, which sucks and happens.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

think the pissy letters were about what the user was accessing not how frequently.

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

And a dnssec policy will solve that for you

[–] green@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Google does not automatically mean bad. It is dangerous precedent to blanket ban and remove nuance.

8.8.8.8 is an excellent service, and provides genuine privacy gains. The largest downside being that it is such a massive target for bad-faith and ignorant actors - like the Italian government.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Google does not automatically mean bad

Yes it does.

Google does everything with an angle, and that angle is putting you under surveillance and collecting monetizable data on you.

Google has (or had, maybe?) fantastic products. They're truly great! The translator, the map, Youtube... But they're great for exactly the purpose of luring you into using them, so they can abuse your privacy with them.

Google products are trojan horses: they're irresistible but their true purpose is nefarious.

[–] green@feddit.nl 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Like I said prior, there is nuance to be had here.

We agree that Google products are generally a honeypot (good products that lure you in), but which products are honeypots are important.

You very likely want to avoid Chrome, Gemini, and Google Search - but 8.8.8.8 is not a honeypot, it is a loss-leader. You will be lured in from 8.8.8.8 if you say "huh. this is a great service. is there anymore?", but 8.8.8.8 itself is not a malignant service.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 5 points 14 hours ago

Their EULA states that they log all traffic (originating IP, requested url, and destination IP). for "business purposes" (at least, the last time I read it). Seems like a honeypot to me...