The proper thing to do is to use the DNS settings the DHCP server provided and testing those settings by providing a server the device can lookup and connect to (with TLS). Then again, who's making more money monetising your activity? Your ISP or Google? Given that your ISP can already see every IP you visit and how much traffic you exchange with that counterparty, who would you rather protect your DNS requests from? Them or Google? Some of them would do this on their own DNS servers (that were the default pushed to your CPE, which was then the default for your network), some of them would actually hijack anything going to udp/53. That said, several ISPs used to do this quite transparently (pun not intended) in the early 2000s, to return advertising pages whenever a DNS query failed. Unless you've actually looked, and performed pcap analysis of what your dns request/response looks like to try and determine if your ISP is intercepting, you can't be sure. > though I haven't seen any evidence that any of them do that Injecting a route into your IGP is pretty trivial, any ISP with an engineer with more than 6 month's experience could manage this. > Today the ISP could, with a bunch of effort, re-route the traffic And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.Ĭhris Messina, open web advocate at Google at the time, was present (check his website now ). And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. Clinton said the State Department will host a meeting in February with network services companies to address the issues around Internet freedom. She urged companies to resist such pressures even if it means losing business in those countries, and argued that a principled stand would be good for business over the long run. In remarks aimed at the business community, Clinton said companies shouldn't yield to pressure from foreign governments to censor themselves or violate human rights. government will meet next month with network services companies to advance "Internet freedom.". Among other initiatives, Clinton said the U.S. > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for uncensored Internet access around the world.
#Chromecast adblock free#
They've made it quite clear through their actions that they're not supporters of a free and open Internet.
The last thing the Internet needs is even more dependence upon Google. > This should bother people here more than it does. You've done the thing you're ranting against and censored the internet. Otherwise by blocking 8.8.8.8 you're breaking the free & open nature of the internet.
And if you really, desperately care for some reason you can route 8.8.8.8 wherever you want. It doesn't change the shape of the internet. Because this is really just an implementation detail of the Cast device connecting to the Cast servers.
If they hardcoded some other google IP and it wasn't a DNS server at all, would that still bother you to the same degree? Would you still be ranting about a "free and open internet"? If not, then your objections in this case are probably misguided to say the least. And if you didn't want that, then don't buy the product? It's not exactly surprising that an internet streaming stick requires connecting to the product's cloud services, is it? Why does it matter if that connection happens via 8.8.8.8 or some other IP resolved by a different DNS server? What is the actual, practical difference of that? It's still connecting to Google in order to provide the singular feature of the device. This doesn't change that? It's a google streaming device that in order to function at all requires a connection to google's data centers.
0 kommentar(er)
