Hacker News Reader

> Google's DNS service is interesting. I was never really sure what the business case for operating a public DNS resolver is, for any company really, but it was warmly welcomed when it was unveiled, at least for me. At the time, the public DNS resolvers I can recall were mostly oriented around blocking content.

They introduced it as ISPs were starting to inject advertising via their own DNS, which competes with Google's core business (it's easy to forget that the overwhelming majority of Google's revenue comes from advertising). That's not to say this isn't a good move from Google, but it's very much aligned with their business interests.

> They introduced it as ISPs were starting to inject advertising via their own DNS ...

This is mentioned in TFA, along with a Wikipedia link [0] to an entry mentioning several errant ISPs who "use DNS hijacking for their own purposes, such as displaying advertisements".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_hijacking#Manipulation_by_...

> They introduced it as ISPs were starting to inject advertising via their own DNS

cough OpenDNS cough

Here's the deal. When you have Google resources and Google ambitions, you don't need an immediate strategy to justify doing something like supplying a free public DNS. Just do it because it's yet another capture of a resource. Maybe it'll be useful in the future.

> I was never really sure what the business case for operating a public DNS resolver

I always assumed it was to improve speed and security on the web.

Which Google believes to be good for their business too. It’s not such a mystery, or shady.

I agree with you and can only add that at some point, obsessing over information collection from stuff like this is a waste of life. Yes, privacy is important. Focusing on it to the point of obsession, as so many of us do, is just time that could have been imbued with much more meaning in light of our limited time here.

I think Google's motivations are likely to include protecting the internet, as they are the incumbent in so many spaces. Problems honestdns solves:

First, outright faking of dns resolution. Maybe to switch ads on internet pages. Maybe to falsify the pages entirely. Remember how internet in hotels worked 10 years ago ?

Second, lying to improve cost metrics for isps. Say, lying to cdns'es about the users location to use the cheapest connection for the isp. Or just lying to give users a bad connection and save on bandwidth.

Third censorship. Mostly dumb organisations' censorship. School networks in early 2000s are a good example.

Fourth, special support for a number of their products. Starting with, of course, their own cdns, but I don't think it'S limited to that.

Surveillance capitalism is one of the big topics of our times, and the outcome of this confrontation between individual rights and corporate greed will influence generations to come. At the same time, it's one more chapter in the history of capital vs. labour: whichever advantages will be extracted from the massive information imbalance will go to the few, to the detriment of the many.

I'm not sure you truly comprehend that a few dozen individuals have access some of the most intimate details on the lives of billions of people and they can do pretty much whatever they like with that, barring any roadblocks from the impotent US privacy laws. And not being part of the game is not really an option any more when almost all your friends and relatives are playing.

This is crazy when one thinks about it: whether I want it or not, my information will end up in the databases of some corporation. And I was born before this craziness, but a significant number of people will have their whole lives stored there and the only way to have a modicum of control over our data is the GDPR.

All the vulnerable aspects of an individual - finding a home, a job, getting medical care, etc - can be influenced through the power of information. Undesirable individuals can be harmed or effectively excluded from society without them even suspecting it. But undesirable is such an abstract word... in the past this meant women, homosexuals, jews, union leaders, religious leaders, journalists and so on.

The primary aim may not be to collect data, but Google does seem to like to collect data.

Even without tieing queries to users, DNS logs combined with Google Play activity and Chrome activity probably gives Google a lot of business intelligence about other companies.

Google claims they do not do this.

>We don't correlate or combine information from our temporary or permanent logs with any personal information that you have provided Google for other services.

Seems pretty clear cut.

But isn't it still very valuable to be able to see for instance: 400% week over week increase of dns requests to hot-new-ios-app.com. Doesn't matter what users, the aggregate trend is important. Similar to how FB uses their proxy app data to buy rising apps.

I haven't read the use policy maybe there is another line item saying they don't use this aggregate data?

I have no objection to them using aggregate data of that form.

It can be collected from a bunch of other sources (eg. Alexa top domains). It also probably isn't a very good indicator. time.ntp.org probably gets a lot of hits...

Yeah I mean they do have Google search, google analytics, play store etc. Plus apps on Firebase/cloud if they really wanted too though I trust they wouldn't.

"that you have provided" is very vague. I don't voluntarily provide Google with much information but I'm sure they know a lot about me.

Also it doesn't protect non-personal entities such as companies.

What makes you think they aren't lying?

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you who to trust or that Google is trustworthy. If you're concerned about DNS privacy then you're probably already not using Google DNS.

Yeah, I'm not sure what kinds of data Google might get from being a DNS resolver that it doesn't already get from people using Google Search.

Maybe competitive analysis (like, to get rough real time numbers of people that use Bing, etc.)? Though that's super niche and there's probably way cheaper ways to get that data.

Maybe it's a Fiber or internet.org kind of play, where by improving infra and access, you expand your own already-saturated market.

> Maybe it's a Fiber or internet.org kind of play

Maybe this is the exact reason + some data mining bonus (Not important, but Google can still do it).

Also, if Google is an ISP, without hosting it's own DNS service (Have to rely on other ISP's service) is dangerous.

>some data mining bonus

Its worth noting that Google publicly documents what data they retain from their DNS service requests.

https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

Yeah, I'm not sure what kinds of data Google might get from being a DNS resolver that it doesn't already get from people using Google Search.

They get to know all your non-HTTP(S) traffic too, of course. Other protocols still exist! Where you make POP3/IMAP/SMTP connections, where you SSH to, that kind of thing.

Google has done nothing so far to substantiate any trust in them. The "don't be evil" motto was abandoned.

It is a business that relies on collecting data, monetizing it, and using it to further reinforce its position.

I can't comment on that without some bias. If you personally believe Google's DNS is a potential threat to your privacy, my best advice is to use whichever DNS service you find to be most trustworthy, be it Quad9, your ISP, Cloudflare, etc.

However, I'm really not sure the whole recent debacle over "don't be evil" is really relevant to perceived ethical issues regarding Google. It's not like the motto became "actually, yes, be evil" - as far as I know, it became "do the right thing." And honestly, company cultures are all much more than just a motto.

I speak only for myself, but my feeling is that trust is very personal and if you don't trust Google, that's your right. All I'm discussing are things that I know, not trying to tell you who or what to trust.

I can’t say I trust Google overall (and have been gradually replacing my use of their services with competitors), but I do think that they abide by their terms and conditions generally, so thanks for posting a link to the 8.8.8.8 docs; they seem pretty clear-cut.

While Google's business model certainly relies on collecting and monetizing user data, I have yet to see any cases of abuse on their part. Rules for employee data access are very strict and I don't know of any cases whee they directly share data with third parties (excluding government demands).

For me, this makes them one of the most trustworthy companies when it comes to handling my data. If you know of any cases otherwise, I would love to hear about them.

Google abuses its position plenty and was found to be guilty in court multiple times.

There are endless examples of shady practices on Google's part, the obvious elephant in the room is ignoring the GDPR.

Don't be evil was NEVER abandoned. That was reported by right wing media and picked up by mainstream media without checking. Here is the the latest employee conduct statement.

"And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!"

Last thing the employee reads in the document.

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html