[tor-talk] DNS provider that does not hijack failures

[Ted Smith]

On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 10:23 -0500, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> On 5/31/2013 8:54 AM, Robin Kipp wrote:
> > Hi Joe and Sean,
> > thanks a lot for your suggestions and discussion!
> > I have to say Google DNS really isn't an option for me, because I simply don't trust Google. Even if they do have a decent privacy policy for their DNS service, they do store geographic information which I think is unacceptable for a DNS provider. I've considered running my own DNS resolver, however the problem is that I use a Soekris Net6501 embedded PC as my home server which is also running the Tor node, and I think a DNS resolver would simply cause too much overheat on this box.
> > Thanks a lot though, might have to consider other options if there aren't any other suggestions!
> > Robin
> >
> Again, I know nothing about Google's DNS service.  I do know they've 
> been sued over or have been the target of serious outcries from privacy 
> advocates & users, over their policies AND violating their own policies.
> 
> Axiom:  Google don't do nothin' for free.  There's something in it for 
> them.  What - I've no idea.  Any contract or policy is only as good as 
> the word of the company behind it - unless one wants to take them to court.
> 
> If one trusts Google to ensure privacy & / or anonymity, in spite of 
> their long track record, well...
> 
> Why would they store geo info - & ONLY geo info?  Maybe to help 
> understand where they need more / less capacity for DNS resolvers? Or 
> something else?

30 second brainstorm of reasons why Google would run a public DNS:

      * Reduce load times/increase positive UX on Google services
      * Get around ISP filtering/throttling at the DNS level
      * They're probably doing it internally anyway and saw an
        easy/cheap opportunity to do both of the above

Only highly technical users will ever change their DNS server settings,
so Google can't expect much out of this.

-- 
Sent from Ubuntu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20130531/df51e01e/attachment.pgp>