Quad 9 New DNS service

New DNS service from Global Cyber Alliance https://www.globalcyberalliance.org/initiatives/quad...

Isn't this the same as Norton ConnectSafe (and OpenDNS somewhat)?

At the moment I am using Google DNS servers because BT's are [censored].

No, it's different. All is explained in the supplied link?

City of London Police a founding organization - in other words GCHQ probably have direct access to it all. Thanks, but no thanks!

GCHQ have access to a year or more of your DNS lookups / metadata anyway. If privacy is that much of a concern using a VPN for everything is the only way to go.

Of course, there's the problem that the VPN provider has full access to all your traffic but...

If you're worried what type of websites you're visiting are going to be known to the Police, maybe it's a good idea not to visit those types of websites in the first place.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

If you're worried what type of websites you're visiting are going to be known to the Police, maybe it's a good idea not to visit those types of websites in the first place.

That's just a variation of "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".

And if you believe that then I've got this bridge for sale...

Edited by billford (Sat 18-Nov-17 21:42:45)

Not sure I've heard that saying before, but I have heard of "If you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear." Not sure if that's what you meant.

If people are looking at websites they don't want the Police to know about, it's certainly not Tower Bridge they need to go to, but the Tower of London would be a start.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

Not sure I've heard that saying before, but I have heard of "If you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear." Not sure if that's what you meant.

I left a "to" out, now corrected, thanks.

If people are looking at websites they don't want the Police to know about, it's certainly not Tower Bridge they need to go to, but the Tower of London would be a start.

http://www.joeyskaggs.com/2016/06/28/and-if-you-beli...

No problem with the correction.

Not sure if you are in favour of safety or not? I would rather have everyone's internet access monitored in some way. One prime example is the work that POLIT do (Paedophile Online Investigation Team).

Don't you believe in keeping people including children safe?

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

I would rather have everyone's internet access monitored in some way.

In that case I don't think further discussion between us would be in any way productive... I'm out.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

I would rather have everyone's internet access monitored in some way.

In that case I don't think further discussion between us would be in any way productive... I'm out.

Oh dear, admitting that on a public forum is not a good idea. It could mean you might have a very early knock on your door one morning.

What are you on about?

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

I would rather have everyone's internet access monitored in some way.

In that case I don't think further discussion between us would be in any way productive... I'm out.

One would hope he is just trolling, that is the only rational explination for his comments!

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

One would hope he is just trolling

The possibility occurred to me- the "stirring" mode is not an unfamiliar one

But I wasn't in the mood for engaging in fruitless discussion or feeding a troll, so either way I was out

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

One would hope he is just trolling

The possibility occurred to me- the "stirring" mode is not an unfamiliar one

But I wasn't in the mood for engaging in fruitless discussion or feeding a troll, so either way I was out

If you think that online safety is a fruitless discussion, then that's your opinion

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

If you think that online safety is a fruitless discussion, then that's your opinion

What's "online safety" got to do with "you might have a very early knock on your door one morning" ?

As you might be aware, all online activity is monitored in one form or another and if you visit websites that you don't want the Police to know about, then expect a knock at the door early one morning from PC Plod. That's all I'm saying.

That's not trolling in any way

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

As you might be aware, all online activity is monitored in one form or another and if you visit websites that you don't want the Police to know about, then expect a knock at the door early one morning from PC Plod. That's all I'm saying.

What a load of nonsense.

That's not trolling in any way

Oh really? Explain exactly what it's got to do with Quad 9 then

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

City of London Police a founding organization - in other words GCHQ probably have direct access to it all. Thanks, but no thanks!

Look back at this comment and you will see why

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

City of London Police a founding organization - in other words GCHQ probably have direct access to it all. Thanks, but no thanks!

Look back at this comment and you will see why

So you admit you were trolling billford.

Wait what? That's very sketchy logic there. Not sure how you think replying to a on topic comment to someone else can be turned into trolling another person.

Can you explain your logic please?

You said you posted a threat to billford because of a post made by pipexer.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You said you posted a threat to billford because of a post made by pipexer.

Wait what? Not sure what thread you are reading, but it certainly isn't this one. It would be better for you to go through and read the whole thread again.

Looks like you can't remember what you've done

You said you posted a threat to billford because of a post made by pipexer.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Looks like you can't remember what you've done

You said you posted a threat to billford because of a post made by pipexer.

I'm not sure sticky taping three comments together counts as going away a re-reading the whole thread again. That's why you've not understood it.

btw I don't forget, I would have thought you would have remembered that by now. I know we don't comment to each other often, but when we do, it seems that you like to troll and argue and you've not changed in over ten years. Maybe it's time to.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

I'm not sure sticky taping three comments together counts

But that's what you've done.

You're coming across very sketchy today, especially not knowing what comments are what.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

No problem with the correction.

Not sure if you are in favour of safety or not? I would rather have everyone's internet access monitored in some way. One prime example is the work that POLIT do (Paedophile Online Investigation Team).

Don't you believe in keeping people including children safe?

that is the propaganda they use to remove our right of privacy, looks like you bought it lock stock and barrel I don't trust or respect our political elites , and with this latest nonsense regarding hate speech, they can make it up as they go along because they will not define what hate speech is in their deluded brains

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

GCHQ have access to a year or more of your DNS lookups / metadata anyway. If privacy is that much of a concern using a VPN for everything is the only way to go.

Of course, there's the problem that the VPN provider has full access to all your traffic but...

Not if you use DNScrypt. I use this in conjunction with PiHole.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

No problem with the correction.

Not sure if you are in favour of safety or not? I would rather have everyone's internet access monitored in some way. One prime example is the work that POLIT do (Paedophile Online Investigation Team).

Don't you believe in keeping people including children safe?

But it doesn't achieve any of that. Those people with something to hide will just use a VPN, Tor, DNScrypt, etc.

All it actually achieves is monitoring average citizens.

It's like saying F1 drivers go too fast on the track so we're installing monitoring devices in every private car. Has zero impact on an F1 driver on a track. Has lots of impact on everyone else.

Edited by nemeth782 (Mon 20-Nov-17 08:05:09)

Or perhaps it is more like some drivers speed and therefore they install speed cameras - something they have done and they say it is for public safety (and I suspect that is one of the primary motivations - although I know there are others).

There is definitely a lot of intelligence that can be gathered by monitoring Internet activity. The extent to which it should be done is debatable but doing it at some level is almost certainly needed.

However, I don't personally ascribe to the point of view that just because something is sponsored by government that it would be monitored any more than your average service (especially in the case of DNS). I also am not overly concerned personally that government can see where I have surfed or what I have posted online - they have far better things to do than look at what I'm doing and I have at least some trust in this country that the stuff I do wouldn't be seen as nefarious or illegal.

+1

In reply to a post by ian72:

Or perhaps it is more like some drivers speed and therefore they install speed cameras - something they have done and they say it is for public safety (and I suspect that is one of the primary motivations - although I know there are others).

Not really, the key difference is that it could all be avoided by those that wanted to. E.g. speed camera jammers were easily available at no cost, and completely impossible to ban. In which case the cameras are pretty pointless.

You start your sentence with"Not really" but don't offer anything different to what I said - whether they are "pointless" or not is irrelevant. Also anyone using speed camera jammers is presumably doing so because they actually plan to break the law - people doing the speed limit don't need them. I would also argue that the amount of money collected in fines would suggest that most people aren't using anything to jam the cameras and therefore they aren't completely pointless.

In reply to a post by ian72:

You start your sentence with"Not really" but don't offer anything different to what I said - whether they are "pointless" or not is irrelevant. Also anyone using speed camera jammers is presumably doing so because they actually plan to break the law - people doing the speed limit don't need them. I would also argue that the amount of money collected in fines would suggest that most people aren't using anything to jam the cameras and therefore they aren't completely pointless.

You can't make such assumptions with encryption though. Someone using encryption might be doing perfectly legal things, or even legally required things. For example, you need to encrypt card data for PCI compliance. You encrypt your online banking. For your speed camera analogy to work, speed camera jammers are freely available and have legitimate and even mandated uses, and your cameras log everyone that passes. As such, they are useless at catching someone that wants to speed, yet can be used by criminals for example, who could hack them, get the traffic logs, and then blackmail people, e.g. "you told your wife you were going to work but actually went towards the strip club, hand over £1,000 or we embarrass you".

There is nothing to be gained from monitoring, it is a waste of time and money, and only has risks and downsides.

You can't make such assumptions with encryption though

I don't believe I did. And using a government DNS service only tells them what site you are going to not what is within the transaction. So, no problem with visiting bank sites, etc - they are all perfectly legal and visiting them doesn't give a great deal of information to the government as they are perfectly legitimate activities.

And as I don't do things like visiting strip clubs behind peoples back I have nothing to hide. It is similar to an article that was in the news recently - a woman unlocked her husbands phone using fingerprint and found he had been having some level of relationship with another woman. He blamed the phone for having been unlocked - but if he hadn't been doing it in the first place he wouldn't have been caught. There is nothing wrong with someone visiting a strip club - hiding it from their nearest and dearest though suggests something is already wrong in the relationship and there are other ways she could find out.

There is a balance between catching bad guys and intruding on personal rights. The balance may not currently be right but to say there is nothing to be gained from monitoring is not a view I can agree with - I strongly believe there are a number of crimes that have been stopped due to the ability to monitor (Internet, phone, CCTV, etc) - stopping doing those things would I am certain result in an increase in crime.

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring.

So the government is wasting money. What a load of tosh.

If you've nothing to hide then let them monitor.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring.

Your source that that bold statement is . . . . . ?

Terrorism continues. QED

Terrorism may well continue but is the level of terrorism the same or less than might otherwise be the case. A question that neither of us has the knowledge or information to answer honestly and openly.

I see you agree that monitoring does not stop terrorism.

Nice attempt at moving the goalposts btw

It doesn't stop ALL terrorism. It most likely does stop some terrorism. Therefore "monitoring stops terrorism" is an accurate phrase - "monitoring does not stop terrorism" is not accurate.

Speeding continues but a static camera slows down traffic for a while.

Semantics and statistics can be used to deflect the argument.

In reply to a post by ian72:

It doesn't stop ALL terrorism. It most likely does stop some terrorism. Therefore "monitoring stops terrorism" is an accurate phrase

No it isn't - unless you have proof?

"monitoring does not stop terrorism" is not accurate

Yes it is, as I said earlier - monitoring happens, terrorism continues.

Edited by deleted (Tue 21-Nov-17 13:18:25)

You think terrorism is like speeding?

I know some people who got shot on a beach in Tunisia who might disagree with you.

You have proof that some terrorism continues. None of us have proof that no terrorism is stopped by monitoring - my suspicion is that there would be more terrorism if there wasn't a level of monitoring, your position is there wouldn't. Without direct access into the security services we aren't likely to get an answer.

Oh look, usual disclaimer applies

In reply to a post by MCM:

A question that neither of us has the knowledge or information to answer honestly and openly.

Yes it is. Some people die due to speeding and fewer die due to the presence of cameras.

I wasn't using the analogy as being similar but as you seem to be out for an argument.

Just as an aside. More people have died in the good ol' US of A due to murder by gun than terrorism in the USA.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Yes it is.

Unbelievable - you really think terrorism is like speeding. I'm disgusted.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Terrorism continues. QED

I do wish you would read the full statement before you shoot from the lip in your inimitable style. The statement was:

"Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring."

Can you please explain how the known fact that terrorism continues then proves that monitoring has no capacity to stop terrorism?

We have no way of knowing whether monitoring has stopped any incidents of terrorism which would otherwise have taken place. The statement is not whether monitoring could stop all terrorism; it is whether it has any capacity to stop terrorism. When you can produce an answer that proves that no incident of possible terrorism has ever been stopped by monitoring will it be fair to claim that you have proved the proposition. Until then you are not advancing any tenable arguments, you are just trolling.

What nonsense. If monitoring is meant to stop terrorism but terrorism continues it is obvious that monitoring has failed to stop terrorism.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

What nonsense. If monitoring is meant to stop terrorism but terrorism continues it is obvious that monitoring has failed to stop terrorism.

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism. You are quite correct that monitoring has not shown it has the absolute capacity to stop terrorism. However, if there is just one incident where monitoring has stopped an incident of terrorism the statement is proven in contradiction to your QED. Until such time as anyone can advance any definitive proof that monitoring has never stopped any incident of terrorism then your QED is just waffle. Quod Erat Demonstrandum (that which was to be demonstrated) has clearly not been demonstrated as we have no way of knowing.

If you would prefer to debate the statement "Only if it had the absolute capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring." instead, then we can all see that your QED is quite correct.

So the question comes back to whether society as a whole is safer with some sort of monitoring and if so, what should be the boundaries? If we could have a sensible debate about that rather than scoring cheap points backwards and forwards, we all (myself included) might have a better understanding and a view about the best way to go forward.

I shouldn't reply as we have already been over this but...

Let's use a comparison to a flu vaccine. Every year the scientists create a vaccine for the public. This vaccine is capable of stopping some flu infections and therefore reduces the number of flu cases in the population. It is impossible to say how many it stops as you never actually see those that would have had the flu without it.

On your statement because some people still get the flu you would consider that proof that the vaccine doesn't work.

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism.

Here is the original statement not as you describe

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

I see you know less about the flu vaccine than terrorism.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I see you know less about the flu vaccine than terrorism.

Fancy pointing out what I got wrong then?

I have a better idea. Read this https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm and try again.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism.

Here is the original statement not as you describe

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Oh, dear. You are in trouble when you start forgetting what you have been castigating others for earlier in the topic:

"Nice attempt at moving the goalposts btw wink"

I asked for the source for the bold statement from @Nemeth782 "Only if it had any capacity to stop terrorism. As it doesn't, it's monitoring for the sake of monitoring". Since you don't have the wherewithal to back up your QED statement about that, I assume you now want to argue about something else.

Let's keep this topic going a bit longer to see how many times you can fall foul of your own attempts to troll others.

Edited by GonePostal (Tue 21-Nov-17 17:20:54)

Obviously I was not clear enough.

You said

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

The original statement whether monitoring had any capacity to stop terrorism not the absolute capacity to stop terrorism.

But here is the original statement

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Monitoring to stop terrorism must be a good thing?

Which is not what you claimed was the original statement.

If you want to keep changing the subject because you can't get your case to stand up in regard to the original statement, then I 'm happy to leave you to it.

I've enjoyed the last couple of hour and aggravating someone who loves to do it to other people but I've got some more valuable things to do with my life now.

PS I'll be glad to buy you a pint if we ever bump into each other because I'm sure we both think the same way about a lot of things!

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

If you want to keep changing the subject because you can't get your case to stand up in regard to the original statement

You've lost me right there

PS I'll be glad to buy you a pint if we ever bump into each other because I'm sure we both think the same way about a lot of things!

You're probably right. Obviously I'd buy you one back too. Cheers

Stop maybe not but certainly net monitoring has without any question reduced its extent. Try pulling your head out of the sand for once.

Didn�t you say the question couldn�t be answered ?

None of us will have full details however I'm more than happy to accept the generalised comments and statements made by those who do know such as Jeremy Fleming (GCHQ) and Andrew Parker (MI-5).

Clearly it suits your agenda to believe otherwise. There have been other occasions over the years in these forums where you have been shown to be wrong in your assumptions, let this be another.

Perhaps they�re on a different agenda that you�re unaware of.

Why are you disgusted?

Why not?

Why not what?

Smells like hotdogs and misery.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

So the government is wasting money. What a load of tosh.

Err, yes, of course! Government bodies waste more money than anyone! The country wouldn't be in such a financially sticky position if they actually got wastage under control in public sector departments such as NHS (some departments), local councils, research etc.

It's not the sites you visit you've got to worry about, it's the error rates in their detection systems. Even a tiny false positive rate produces so much data to be looked at by humans that it overwhelms them. It's a needle in a very big haystack, unfortunately you get many pins as well to sift through. Here's a good explanation of why mass surveillance for the purposes of detecting and preventing terrorism is a straw-man argument:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/terro...

As for them not having contents of communications, the meta data they do collect is enough to give a very detailed picture of your life - what do you think Facebook like buttons on a site are there for? To track you across the web, facebook user or not and profile you.

Don't you start. Wasting money on trying to stop terrorism is what we're on about.

As I thought. No coherent discussion.

You do help a lot of users on this forum but similar to a couple of years ago, if someone disagrees with you, your posts start to ............

If you, like the two other trolls, want to hark back to what you think you remember from years ago, include me out because the past is a foreign country... as they say.

But you are being a numpty in the present.

This discussion has wandered a long way off-topic about new DNS servers being available.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

So the government is wasting money. What a load of tosh.

If you've nothing to hide then let them monitor.

i have nothing to hide, but I still do not like to be monitored, that is why I use cash for 99% of my transactions and why I do not have a loyalty card.