So they're saying "Privacy First: Guaranteed". How is it guaranteed though? Is there anything we can do to verify that claim or do we just have to believe them?
As far as I understand they're an American company, so if some government agency wants to have information, they will make them give the information by any means necessary.
Same here in Ireland. We've had these "Big 4" guys as enforcers on various public projects and funny how they always seem to be on the inside whenever things pay off. I shudder whenever I hear them mentioned.
Also, in Ireland we typically refer to our country as such though perhaps it should be formally referred to as "The Republic of Ireland" to avoid confusion with "The North".
That said it does actually say "Ireland" on the constitution.
While I'm at it, in Irish language: "Eireann" is the Island itself; "Eire" is the nation (the spirit of Ireland if you like), and constitutionally the latter isn't bounded by political borders.
"Sasana" (sawsunna) is England and to describe something as English is "Sasanach". "Amach" (Ahmock) is out. Run the two together and you've got "Sasamach" which is Irish for Brexit.
Funnily enough it also corresponds to an old Republican mantra "Brits Out" which was used to refer to their presence on the north. Funny the turn that history can take.
1: It's easier to pronounce
2: Because it's easier to pronounce all foreigners use it
3: Because it's easier to pronounce and all foreigners use it, it is easier to use (If I introduce myself as being "from the Netherlands" I get blank looks. What I nowadays do is "I'm from Holland, Amsterdam, Ajax" and 90% of all people I know exactly where I am from).
4: Holland covers about 50% of the population, and about 70% of the economy
5: In Holland there is Amsterdam, Schiphol & Rotterdam basically the places that tourists go to or have heard about
PS The official name is "Kingdom of the Netherlands", I guess that solidifies my point about Holland being easier :)
I am not from one of the Hollands and I try to avoid using Holland but I will do so sometimes.
It's a bit like using America for the United States which seems more wrong to me than using Holland for the Netherlands.
> As far as I understand they're an American company, so if some government agency wants to have information, they will make them give the information by any means necessary.
I don't get this attitude. Do you expect or want companies NOT to obey law? Or have criminals serve you DNS, which try to evade law?
> Do you expect or want companies NOT to obey law?
Of course not. I expect privacy conscious companies to incorporate in privacy friendly countries. Or, to put it the other way around, I evaluate company privacy claims in the context of the law they operate in.
> Do you expect or want companies NOT to obey law?
Whose law? US law in this space says a lot about the rights of US citizens but a lot less about the rights of non-US citizens. So, yes it's reasonable to expect that a US company should obey the law but it doesn't follow that there's no reasonable concern with that.
Having said that, I applaud Cloudfare for making this step. Just because something isn't NSA proof doesn't mean that it has no value. But the concern is valid given that Cloudfare, presumably, still have access to the lookup data.
Sure, but that doesn't mean, and is unlikely to mean, that they can't log.
They won't be able to pass historic data as they, presumably, don't have it. But if they are formally requested to give information, at least for targeted users, my understanding is that they are legally obliged to comply i.e. they can't refuse to collect if asked.
I believe there are caveats to that e.g. they can't be forced to backdoor an application but I don't believe that that would be necessary in this case.
If the law is purposely working against the public best interest in violation of the right to privacy I expect them to make a moral stand.
In USA the law provides them with a legal excape to avoid that moral stand, which they promptly do.
It is not about "obeying law" as much as a the work of a soldier is "obeying superiors orders". There are moral limits. Now grow up and get to know yours.
Well having privacy is ok. However if there is an valid order to provide queries for specific source IPs, that is probably a reason to comply. If anyone asks for all data, well yeah, that is not ok.
As far as I understand they're an American company, so if some government agency wants to have information, they will make them give the information by any means necessary.