Posted by mywacaday 10 hours ago
Brilliant.
[1] https://quad9.net/news/blog/italian-blocking-demands-followi...
Seriously, what the fuck? So you're supposed to block VPNs as well? What's next, Tor exit nodes? New VPN and Tor nodes as they pop up? I really don't like where this is going.
It'd be great for this to be the first major relinquishment of nation-state power to happen without violence, without backroom deals, without wedge politics and flag waving.
Just... let it go.
It's beyond obvious that copyright is not going to exist in 1000 years. Every creature on earth - especially the internet - survives by copying information. It's the most basic life force in the universe.
Copyright is serving exactly nobody today. It's time. Are there elder stateswo/men in the room who can see the writing on the wall and act with grace?
Except for nearly everyone who writes anything (including software) or other artistic pursuits to make a living. This includes a majority of people here on HN.
Modern IP law inhibits productivity more than it helps, imo. LLMs have fundamentally changed our line of work, and they have done so by completely ignoring the existing legal framework for IP. We should not defend the current implementation just because some people might suffer reduced earning potential.
If you look at outcomes it has completely failed while making big corps very rich in the process
And outside open source there has been a staggering amount of creative work at all quality levels done for commercial purposes under the protection of copyright. Is there a convincing argument that the last century of software and music and books and etc would have been just as staggering without copyright?
I would love to hear such an argument. In my youth I thought copyright was blatantly stupid and should be abolished. I still sorta think that but I don't have a convincing argument in the face of the absolutely massive amount of good work that has been produced under it.
Are you sure about that?
So just to be clear;
You're advocating for the end of software licensing? Ie the removal of GPL or Open Source licenses? A landscape where any source code (or binary) can be snapped up by say Amazon or Microsoft and run via a paid subscription?
You're advocating for a business model which removes your access to local code and only allows access via a terminal or browser?
Because removal of copyright doesn't mean corporations go away. Rather it incentivizes business models that protect their products in other ways.
In the 80's and 90's, pre-internet, binary programs were distributed on media. An arms race of copiers and copy protection ensued. The copiers won, and since copyright enforcement has always been weak, business changed to favoring remote access (with subscription) over running locally via purchase.
At the same time Open Source and Free Software have thrived. Copyright protects that software being used outside the terms of the license. Indeed there's even outrage when it's used within the terms of the license (by AWS etc.)
Of course OSS still thrives under a copyrightless environment. (Free Software less so). But equally it means AI can simply be trained on it (probably no great loss since it's likely most of OSS will be AI generated anyway.)
Business however will adapt. And the easiest way to prevent coping now is simply remote execution. With a suitable Terms Of Use declaration.
Outside of software it would destroy music, movies, books etc. Basically it becomes a race to the bottom in terms of production costs (think user-generated You-Tube as the high-water mark.) But I assume you meant in the context of software.
Yes, I agree, that in much less than 1000 years copyright is dead. Because by then so much is in the public domain it doesn't matter anyway. Also because by then the last human programmer is long dead. AI will write anything you want, only you won't even ask because computer interfaces and abilities will be long past where we are now. You would have no need to create software any more than you need to build a plane or car today.
And those industries have taken less than 150 years to invent, explode, consolidate and commoditize. Indeed most of the complexity disappears when we go EV.
In 1000 years copyright is gone. But today it serves a lot of people.
That kind of thing isn't unheard of for police agencies with moral and oversight issues, though. Orgs start seeking for bigger reasons. A simple copyright issue creatively expounded into an imaginary global drug bombing cyber trafficking crime ring takedown creates a massive internal win. So they do that.
Trivial to do nowadays: https://focsec.com/
>I really don't like where this is going.
German courts think the internet revolves around German laws. There are some really insane cases, sometimes they will consider a website to fall under German jurisdiction simply for having a German-language version (somehow ignoring that Austria and Switzerland exist, ignoring German-speaking minorities in other countries, ignoring that a fully automated translation in 100+ languages is now possible at the click of a button).
Calling a solidly democratic nation "fascist" is a rhetorical reversal straight out of the authoritarian playbook.
That’s why it’s endorsed by notable Nazi families and collaborators, eg, Soros family and Schwab family.
I think he seriously pissed off the right people in Russia who are now throwing whatever shit they can think of at the wall, and some of it sticks. They do not try to be consistent at all, anything that will convince someone is fine.
>Since Quad9 already performs DNSSEC validation, DNSSEC being enabled in the forwarder will cause a duplication of the DNSSEC process, significantly reducing performance and potentially causing false BOGUS responses.
This sounds dodgy. Surely that means Quad9 can poison my DNS?
Haven't had time to study the bug and really understand the whole issue myself. Just left it there with the takeaway that local validation is currently not for non-experts.
(Sorry not at my computer. Details rather vague from memory.)
What's the specific threat you're envisioning? If it involves Quad9 themselves being malicious, what would DNSSEC on the forwarding prevent?
This page explains how all of this works in detail: https://quad9.net/news/blog/quad9-enables-dnssec-on-all-serv...
To protect yourself from an upstream resolver using DNSSEC, you need to be doing something akin to a full recursive lookup yourself. This is a flaw in the DNSSEC design and a reason why DoH took off instead.
What? I don't see how you can call that a flaw in DNSSEC when DoH is no better in this regard; it doesn't even attempt to protect against a malicious recursive resolver. The only way to do that is to validate DNSSEC on the client.
I've always been of two minds on this. On one hand, that concern is beyond any reasonable level of security/performance/reliability tradeoff for most any user. At the same time, it is a bit of a shame DNS doesn't have a more scalable & performant approach to security which can just always be done without having to consider it a tradeoff, however minor in practice.
1. The forwarder gets a response claiming the record is supposed to be DNNSEC signed from the parent (recursively traversing from the root). The forwarder checks the signature of this claim. If the signature is valid, the forwarder continues on to validate the signature of the record and checks its validity to know if the info was secure. If the signature is invalid, the forwarder knows any information any information is not able to be validated as secure
- Somewhere during the recursive checks through the root, the forwarder gets an unsigned (no DNSSEC) or invalidly signed (e.g. your stripped response) response. The forwarder knows any information is not able to be validated as secure.
- A claim for lack of configuration or support of DNSSEC records comes back. The forwarder knows any information is not able to be validated as secure.
So you always know whether or not the information was secure, it's just if it was insecure you don't know if it's because it was just never secured or if someone tried to tamper with it. And that should make sense, an insecure message is by definition one which you can't tell if it has been tampered with.
> That's something people should run themselves. I run Adguard Home on my router.
But you'll also get a bunch more benefits from OpenWRT, to make it worth your while.
- I was able to buy a router for <$100 that was WiFi 7 capable (W1700K[0]) and had better hardware than most consumer routers. You can find plenty of cheaper routers that are flashable and more capable.
- Adguard Home
- Split tunneling/VLANs: Since we're talking Mullvad, you can put devices behind Mullvad on a VLAN. So activate Mullvad by changing SSIDs.
- Trivial to put IOT devices on a VLAN (can make one directional too so you can access from your main network but they can't reach back. I throttle everything IOT)
- Tailscale
- QoS (Control the speed and prioritization of different connections)
- It's a fucking computer, you can even run shell scripts
If you're on an iPhone, uBlock is now supported: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ublock-origin-lite/id674534269...
There's also Orion browser, but I found it to be a bit more glitchy, especially around sites like YouTube (fuck the app, I'm not watching videos there): https://orionbrowser.com/
I could also use a VPN to keep my phone always on my home network and thus behind my own ad blocking DNS but Mullvad's adblocking DNS was really nice and convenient.
For example, DNS blocking isn't going to block YouTube ads if you're using the app since they don't need to respect your DNS, but it will if you're in browser because they can't control that.
For apps I always use revanced.
I'm on your side but telling people to buy a new phone doesn't solve their problem. Short of that uBlock and/or Orion are their best options
Look, I still run AdGuard on my router, but it's not the same thing
Setting up a local resolver, such as a Pi-Hole or Unbound on a firewall can serve unencrypted responses to your devices. Those resolvers in turn can use DoT/DoH with their upstream resolvers to encrypt the requests that go through untrusted networks on the Internet.
This is the best of both worlds, the simplicity of unencrypted DNS while encrypting traffic where it matters.
Maybe it’s time to try nym.com?
Use an online service that's new enough and small enough and it might not be compromised, but the moment it gets popular men with guns and national security letters with gag orders will show up to install hardware on their prem, take over entire offices, or just demand reports.
VPNs and secure DNS services aren't there to keep your data from the NSA, ICE, or even the police. They are useful for keeping your ISP from selling your browsing history to anyone willing to pay them (https://www.mitnicksecurity.com/in-the-news/republicans-just...). It'll help keep a little of what you do online away from data brokers, keep your ISP from sending you DMCA notices, and not much else.
However, it's not at all the reality of a vast swath of other countries (or, at least, not yet; see Chat Control v2). The US is particularly foul (and effective) when it comes to this practice, but anything outside of US jurisdiction that doesn't have an office in the US can't be touched by laws like these, and the laws of most other countries tend to be significantly less invasive than American ones when it comes to data interception and the practices surrounding it.
they arent gods. some people actually have moral standards and dont just do whatever a foreign agency wants them to do
Big tech services are less private than you think but almost every provider who cares about privacy is safer than you expect. Most of the people who work there are committed to their mission, and if they ever get a gag order someone will leak it in no time because they know exactly how to do it without exposing their identity.
When it’s a hostile environment entirely, they hack and do secret operations and bribe.
Unbound can also be used to block malware and advertising domains using shared public lists, or you can build your own list. Your resolver’s DNS queries could be piped through Mullvad or Tor if you want additional privacy.
Sad to see this going away, but I assume this is so Mullvad can focus on their primary services.
Trivial to self-host, and gives you full control of blocking.
https://adguard-dns.io/kb/general/dns-providers/ have a list of options that some of them have ad blocker
1.1.1.2
1.0.0.2
2606:4700:4700::1112
2606:4700:4700::1002IME, it was much faster than Quad9 for this purpose
First Mullvad shuts down its Google search proxy
Now its DoH service
What's next
1. Not every service still supports 1.1, RFC recommends H2
I say this respectfully, but Mullvad is perhaps “dumbing down” their VPN service in an effort to simplify their operations and cater to a wider and more general audience.
Discontinued
This seems like an overstatement: I have been running my own recursive DNS with Unbound for years and never thought it was a "highly specialized undertaking." It took perhaps a couple of hours to set up in the pre-AI age. I filter ads and trackers using an aggressive blacklist[0].
This dude has been doing it for 25 years, and actually this is a dns provider for domain names which I'm decently sure makes it more complicated than public dns.
They're allowed to say they don't want to pay for it anymore, I just think their logic is bad. Or maybe their lawyer said they're running risks just ignoring takedown and they didn't want to deal with it anymore.
Can you expand on this? Isn't all DNS for domain names?
Hey dang can I get my rate limit removed yet?
I'm sure that the time, effort, money, and exposure that goes into responding and adhering to legal requests for a publicly offered service is something Mullvad wasn't expecting and would rather not be doing considering it's not their core focus.
DNS is harder to do that way because it's hard to have limits on DNS. Perhaps DNS could be adapted with QUIC, to allow fast, encrypted DNS that's easier to rate-limit, and then it'd be easier for average people to run public mirrors with limits.