New DNS Servers = Fast

[TheMastersSon]

 

Also you seem to be missing my larger point, which is the last part of your comment. If YOU believe you're better off blocking a given site, it's YOUR decision and nobody is stopping you. My objection is to the subjugation of internet navigation rights period, to anyone, whether it's DNS providers or Mozilla or ISPs or our government.

Similarly, you or anyone else with an honorable white hat topped with a halo of pure intent is free not to use this DNS Server if Quad9

really do represent what you clearly have strong issues with.

 

You have provided no proof of any ill intent so far against the ideas Quad9 have. Are Quad9 really subjugating your internet navigation rights?

Yes they are, and that's my exact point. Anyone who blocks end-user access to any site is a subjugator of internet navigation rights. The only difference with Quad9 and other third-party DNS providers is that the subjugation is currently voluntary. In the continued absence of protection for internet traffic in our country, there is no doubt whatsoever that it will not remain voluntary for long, e.g. already we're forced to use non-current and specially hacked versions of Firefox and other web browsers to bypass their own wannabe fascist dictatorship over our internet navigation. Etc.

[Deleted133263User]

Well ok they are preventing us going to a bunch of sites, but the objective is to protect people going to somewhere they can easily and unwittingly pick up a virus, to which I say they can subjugate my navigation for those purposes all they wish :D

 

Show me a URL that they are actually blocking that has nothing to do with protecting us and you have a good point. But even then, as noted in the FAQ it can be reported and changed to not blocking it.

 

Until then, the mission creep you suspect may happen is just supposition at the moment, and assuming they are another 'evil company' (for whatever purpose you are imagining).

 

--------------

 

On to "fascist dictatorship" - You mean the programmers at Mozilla, and presumably that they now include things like "Safe Browsing" by default since they jumped into bed with google ?

 

Or even the Chromium project which uses the same .. Though its very easy to turn it off if you object to it, just go to advanced settings.

 

 

Isn't that the same for Firefox and using its advanced settings in about:config you just do a filter search and double click all relevant lines to disable them, IIRC Firefox used to be very configurable and you could switch off a huge amount of what it can do.

 

Is there really a need for a hacked and non-current version of Firefox ?. And I thought the hackers conference participants regarded Firefox as being so easy to hack these days they just dont bother trying, because Chrome is the tough nut to crack and has become no.1 target to play with ? (at least it was last year anyway from what I heard)

[TheMastersSon]

Well ok they are preventing us going to a bunch of sites, but the objective is to protect people going to somewhere they can easily and unwittingly pick up a virus, to which I say they can subjugate my navigation for those purposes all they wish

Again I have absolutely nothing against end users going and not going where they wish on the internet, and filtering it to their heart's content. The issue is final control over navigation, and as mentioned there's a current profit-driven race to see who can be first to get away with stripping this final control from the only place where it belongs: end users. IMO it's not only a bad idea, it's fascist and violative of our Constitution, and it's why I'm against it even on a voluntary basis. The only thing worse than no security is false security, and false security is all DNS providers, ISPs, Mozilla, Microsoft, our government or anyone else in the entire universe can offer end users, who are finally (and legally) responsible for what is accessed on the internet.

 

As for Chrome I never have and never would run it. From my reading Google's entire motivation for Chrome was to create a web browser that did not have an option to turn off third-party cookie tracking. No joke. The entire project was their foot in the door for legalized but forcible mass rape. As was Windows 10 for Microsoft etc. Not that these companies are evil or anything imo, their monopoly positions are incidental (as was Ma Bell's a century ago for our landline phone network etc) and they do what they do simply because they're still allowed to.

Edited December 2, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[Deleted133263User]

Well if you do not wish to answer some of my questions then that is your prerogative.

 

A new question then in response to your latest :

 

Are Quad9 also driven by the "profit driven race" ?, and if so do you have proof they are, and that it will affect this service in any way ?

 

So far any proof requests I have asked you have not answered, I believe that is because you cant, your opinions are based on supposition / conjecture and nothing grounded in fact with regards to this particular DNS server.

 

And you do not need to keep repeating points you have already made.

 

-----------

 

Personally I am using Chromium (the open source project), not Chrome with Google branding (or indeed the sticky cookies which used to be a problem with Chrome many years ago).

Chromium is as configurable in the cookie department as anyone wishes a browser could be (Advanced settings - Content Settings - Cookies)

 

"mass rape" seems a bit over the top in describing this behaviour though, besides rape being an entirely different and horrible physical act, it does not even work well as a metaphor.

 

-----------

 

Anyway, citizen, come the day of the revolution, you will be able to line them all up against the wall eh?.

Thank you for your participation :thumbsup:, your opinions have probably gained this topic a fair bit more visibility.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Guest

[TheMastersSon]

Well if you do not wish to answer some of my questions then that is your prerogative.

I understand your position and from your responses I think you understand mine. It's the idea of usurping final control over internet navigation that I'm against, and that will eventually be illegal in our country, the same as it's illegal to intentionally interfere with or deny delivery of our postal mail, phone and other common carrier utility traffic.

 

A new question then in response to your latest :

 

Are Quad9 also driven by the "profit driven race" ?, and if so do you have proof they are, and that it will affect this service in any way ?

 

So far any proof requests I have asked you have not answered, I believe that is because you cant, your opinions are based on supposition / conjecture and nothing grounded in fact with regards to this particular DNS server.

 

And you do not need to keep repeating points you have already made.

Then I wish you'd stop accusing me of having some kind of grudge against Quad9. Countless thousands of other companies are offering the same false security and subjugated navigation rights. It's the concept of it that I'm against.

 

"mass rape" seems a bit over the top in describing this behaviour though, besides rape being an entirely different and horrible physical act, it does not even work well as a metaphor.

Only another 10 or 20 years will prove that the term is not only not a metaphor, it's precisely accurate. The word rape is generic for violation "raping of the land" etc etc), sexual assault is one and especially horrible form of it.

 

Anyway, citizen, come the day of the revolution, you will be able to line them all up against the wall eh?.

Thank you for your participation :thumbsup:, your opinions have probably gained this topic a fair bit more visibility.

It's evolution not revolution, the internet must suffer through the exact same abuse phase as every other new communications technology in our 240-year history.

[Deleted133263User]

 

Well if you do not wish to answer some of my questions then that is your prerogative.

1. I understand your position and from your responses I think you understand mine. It's the idea of usurping final control over internet navigation that I'm against, and that will eventually be illegal in our country, the same as it's illegal to intentionally interfere with or deny delivery of our postal mail, phone and other common carrier utility traffic.

 

A new question then in response to your latest :

 

Are Quad9 also driven by the "profit driven race" ?, and if so do you have proof they are, and that it will affect this service in any way ?

 

So far any proof requests I have asked you have not answered, I believe that is because you cant, your opinions are based on supposition / conjecture and nothing grounded in fact with regards to this particular DNS server.

 

And you do not need to keep repeating points you have already made.

2. Then I wish you'd stop accusing me of having some kind of grudge against Quad9. Countless thousands of other companies are offering the same false security and subjugated navigation rights. It's the concept of it that I'm against.

 

"mass rape" seems a bit over the top in describing this behaviour though, besides rape being an entirely different and horrible physical act, it does not even work well as a metaphor.

Only another 10 or 20 years will prove that the term is not only not a metaphor, it's precisely accurate. The word rape is generic for violation "raping of the land" etc etc), sexual assault is one and especially horrible form of it.

 

Anyway, citizen, come the day of the revolution, you will be able to line them all up against the wall eh?.

Thank you for your participation :thumbsup:, your opinions have probably gained this topic a fair bit more visibility.

3. It's evolution not revolution, the internet must suffer through the exact same abuse phase as every other new communications technology in our 240-year history.

 

 

My additions to the quotes above :

 

1. Yep, I'm hoping similar changes happen throughout the world to be honest. Currently in the UK it looks like there are going to be some pretty shocking changes to the snoopers charter - Shocking because previously they have kept necromancing the bill over a number of years to change it for the better of business and government being waaay too nosy, none of which would have helped the usual cause of fighting terrorism, the latest proposals actually look good for a change, instead of some politician proposing changes which secure him / her into a CEO position for retirement from parliament in the companies that would benefit in the future, these changes seem like they benefit the average joe instead of further turning the UK into a surveillance state.

 

2. You are right, I mistakenly thought you did and were building a case against using this versus what people are already sucked into, which given the limited options anyone has, Quad9 seems to be the better deal imho. So my apologies for the crossed wires there.

 

3. I was having a bit of fun with you there, follow the citizen link I gave, Wolfie Smith was a bit of a comical character ineffectively standing up for a cause he believed in, it was a UK sitcom from <ahem, a few> years back. "FREEDOM FOR TOOTIN'!", one of his sayings was "come the day of the revolution you will all be up against the wall". Given I thought that you were building a case against the idea of Quad9 being better than what I perceive to be the average user setup, it was a failed attempt at making fun in response :)

 

 

(The point I am missing in responding to here I do not wish to deliberate on, it is just something I have seen a few people on this forum who are sensitive to the use of when it is not necessary, RL experiences which this hobby and this forum provides a sanctuary from).

[Deleted133263User]

Just updated the OP to include a few tips on undoing this if it all goes wrong because of unforeseen circumstances, and in case other ISP's provide similar services to British Telecom which require the ISP's own DNS Servers to be in use, otherwise the ISP then sends you to an error page all the time.

 

I also sent a message to Quad9 informing them that the simple instructions they give in the video, may not be quite so simple where ISP's are meddling with this stuff.

 

I got a reply ..

 

 

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will provide an update in our FAQs to address these types of issues.

[Deleted133263User]

Also to future proof this a bit, I included a paragraph on setting IPv6 settings.

[TheMastersSon]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will provide an update in our FAQs to address these types of issues.

I'll be interested to see what else they can say, other than the usual "Contact or change your ISP". Or maybe "Contact or change your elected representatives".

[Deleted133263User]

Looks like everyone wants a slice of this pie

New service 1.1.1.1 https://1.1.1.1/

Also Steve Gibsons DNS Benchmark has been updated and taken 9.9.9.9 and 1.1.1.1 onboard as part of its default set for comparison with whatever you are using.

https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

I think from now I will be testing 1.1.1.1 as Primary DNS server, and 9.9.9.9 as Secondary backup DNS server.

9.9.9.9 has served me well and has proved very reliable since I started this topic.

Anyway before anyone asks if I work for the company or some crap .. Go read Cloudflares missions statements on 1.1.1.1 yourself and make up your own mind instead of listening to me blab :P