djbdns
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: blocking IP ranges from querying tinydns

To: "Dean Anderson" <dean@av8.com>, "Mike Jackson" <mj@sci.fi>
Subject: RE: blocking IP ranges from querying tinydns
From: "Miller, Raul D" <rdmiller@usatoday.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:39:47 -0400
Cc: <dns@list.cr.yp.to>
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-djbdns@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list dns@list.cr.yp.to
Mailing-list: contact dns-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
Thread-index: AceWYHpwwnoD0goyTpOE4Us1j1MzMgAv0bxA
Thread-topic: blocking IP ranges from querying tinydns
Dean Anderson wrote:
> It was decided a long time ago that DNS data is public knowledge.  

Who decided what?

Public DNS is public, because it has been made public, but
people use private DNS in a number of significant cases.

It's basically a question of "what do you want to work, and what do you
want to not work?"

> Cyveillance is doing nothing wrong by monitoring the public web pages
> and this obviously means querying the DNS servers for those web sites.

> Other search engines do the same.

Yeah, probably.

> I suggest that, at minimum, you should ask your customers if they wish
> to block Cyveillance (and other search engines).  Being you are in
> Finland, I don't know what privacy laws you have to obey. But it would
> seem only ethical and proper that you should put such questions to
your
> customers and let them choose, rather than making the choice for them
> without their knowledge or approval.

This seems like a good idea, to the degree that it's practical.

> In the U.S., such unauthorized blocking would violate the Wiretap Act
> and the ECPA, because it is unauthorized (ECPA), and not a 'necessary
> incident to the rendition of service' (Wiretap Act).  See for example,
> http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/JohnLevine/

I get a 404 on this page, and I'm dubious about this legal reasoning.

-- 
Raul


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>