[kwlug-disc] DailyTech - Concerned About Privacy? You're Probably up to no Good, Says Google CEO

[unsolicited]

Lori Paniak wrote, On 12/11/2009 11:09 PM:
> I am guessing that a good, reliable DNS service that doesn't pull any
> funny business is something one has to pay for - like any service.

Assuming this is possible. i.e. I suspect any second level or higher 
DNS server doesn't even have a facility to charge one-off customers to 
let them use their DNS servers.

And charging for DNS use is probably verbotten. It sort of being 
contrary to the whole idea of DNS.

> What are the best options?  If I'm at home, it seems the best is my
> ISP's (Bell) DNS.  What if I'm on the road?  Or want to use it for
> commercial purposes?

If you don't have a commercial account, likely your terms of use don't 
permit you to use the connection for commercial purposes, DNS or 
otherwise.

> As fallback I use 4.2.2.x, but I want to minimize abusing of "public"
> resources.
> 
> I really dislike OpenDNS grabbing invalid lookups.  It is intrusive, but
> that's their business model.  I'd rather pay to support a better model.

Me, I just want the raw error message back as quickly as possible - so 
I can correct my typos and get on with it. No ads, and particularly, 
'did you actually mean ...'


I suppose you could just trust the DHCP DNS settings of whatever 
network you're on at that moment, Lori. Or run a local caching only 
nameserver that picks up on DHCP's DNS. Perhaps even with some logic 
to use a preferred DNS if at home, and if you find some networks send 
you to goofy DNS' (e.g. OpenDNS), some logic to put some preferences 
around that when on those networks. (via proxy rules?)

	Some nets, though, WPL and/or Starbuck's (?), force you through their 
DNS - their networks not letting you pass requests to port 53 out 
directly.

Perhaps always using VPN or otherwise tunnelling, has some advantages? 
Perhaps overkill, even if these public wireless networks pass your VPN 
traffic, but if you have sufficient other reasons to run such a 
connection, maybe it isn't overkill in some cases.

.
.
.
>>>  --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Paul Nijjar <paul_nijjar at yahoo.ca> wrote:
.
.
.
>>>> Given the transfer times from websites, I don't think response time
>>>> is a good reason to go to Google DNS. People come up with these
>>>> timings and I totally don't get why it is relevant to use the
>>>> fastest DNS you can. Isn't "fast enough" good enough?

Well ... assuming one's current DNS is fast enough. (I, like Paul, ran 
into Roger's DNS strangeness, so my issue was trying to identify the 
culprit and eliminate the strangeness, at the time.)

Khalid also made this same point in an earlier thread that speed, if 
reasonably sufficient, becomes irrelevant. Assuming reasonable caching 
of lookups on your local computer. [It does seem, however, knee-jerk 
intuitive to question speed, initially.]

>>>> I surprised myself last night by realizing that I don't mistrust
>>>> Google DNS as much as I mistrust pretty much everything else they
>>>> do.

The problem being, at what point does this DNS fall into that latter 
category, and how soon will we know when it happens.

.
.
.
>>>> At least I can come up with a plausible explanation for this
>>>> service: Google hates ISPs and is fighting them in the Net
>>>> Neutrality wars..
.
.
.


Huh? What are you referring to? Link? Sounds like another bit of juicy 
industry gossip I've been blissfully ignorant of until now. Thanks so 
much Paul.