Hacker News Reader

Comment by sebyx07 | Hacker News Reader

1.1.1.1 is the solution?

What makes you think CloudFlare (or Google/8.8) could not be hit with the same legal injunction? This is a court order and Quad9 must comply, as would CloudFlare or Google.

I am not aware of 1.1 or 8.8 ever being forced to block/change DNS. While this does not prove they won't in the future, considering the popularity of the services this suggests US law is on their side.

Additionally, Cloudflare has previously shown commitment to deliver DNS exactly as it receives it with no changes (see archive.me debacle).

Except in the case of deciding to exclude EDNS Client Subnet, which in my experience completely borks CDNs. Which is why I switched to Quad9 in the first place.

I get what you're saying, but we're talking about a very specific action: a court injunction. Whether or not it will be overturned or invalid is a followup - I am not versed at all on German law but I would assume it's a criminal penalty to refuse to comply with a court injunction (for anything, not just this). As stated in the blog, they will comply and fight the injunction's validity.

That is not exactly what the blog says.

None of us will be traveling to Germany until this is settled.

> We have retained counsel, and we are in the process of filing an objection to the injunction, though we are required to comply with it.

Sir, I interpret your words as what I stated above - you will comply as required by law and fight the injunction as invalid. If you have another meaning, please clarify.

Nothing has yet been proposed which is technically possible to comply with, to the best of our knowledge. There has been no mechanism proposed whereby we could be in compliance, nor has anyone proposed a way of meeting the very substantial cost of making it happen. Nor has anyone yet addressed issues of proportionality, which I gather are central to this part of German law. Nor, as a public-benefit foundation, is it even legal for us to convert resources from the public benefit to Sony's private benefit, and that hasn't yet been addressed. So it is, for many reasons, very premature to be talking about compliance with the injunction.

For now, there's the filing of objection in the Hamburg court, then the appeal to a superior court... There are many steps here, and the first have barely been taken.

> I am not aware of 1.1 or 8.8 ever being forced to block/change DNS.

Maybe because both have a DMCA process in place and don’t see the need fighting in the courts?

> considering the popularity of the services this suggests US law is on their side.

That won't help much if they're brought before EU courts.

The reason Google doesn't get brought to courts like that is because they already comply with rights owners.

Also 8.8.8.8

Cloudflare's public DNS would need to be within this jurisdiction or be hit in a similar way in another jurisdiction.

Edit: whoops, I thought Quad9 was an ISP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com