8 Comments »

Peter Kasting said:
Google is extremely forthright about addressing your concerns: http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy.html . To put it simply, they’re not collecting/analyzing/aggregating/storing this data, they’re not sharing it with the search or ads folks, they’re not doing anything other than what’s absolutely necessary to avoid DOS attacks and find problems with the service.
# 3 December 2009 at 2:50 pm

Kristopher Smith said:
Hi Peter, I read the policy when I was writing this post. I should have included it. My apologies, and thank you for the addition.
That said, according to the document regarding “temporary and permanent” data there are many data points that are stored. On the permanent listing there are 12.
At no point did I reference personally identifiable information or combination of data across Google. I’m glad we’re on the same page.
What I do state is that Google already has volumes of data usage data and this is another set to mine. Whether it is for helping to stop DDoS attacks or find problems with the service it will be analyzed.
I’m simply asking for Google to take on another initiative of opening up this data to the public if it wants to make the internet a better place because many outside of Google can help to make it a better interwebs.
# 3 December 2009 at 3:18 pm

John Cierra said:
Kristopher,
Your reply to Peter’s point looks disingenuous.
The article you wrote threatens of privacy invasion and data mining. The headline has the word “scary”. The thrust of the writing talks of problems of Google storing data, something that contradicts the original policy. Your point about Google sharing is completely secondary.
It’s pretty clear you didn’t read the details in advance. It’s OK to make a mistake, but a responsible blogger would correct the headline and original article, not try to cover up a mistake.
# 3 December 2009 at 5:34 pm

Kristopher Smith said:
John,
Complete genuineness follows.
My response to Peter looks or is disingenuous? Not sure how you can draw that conclusion from the text. Was it he way that I was holding my head or a certain look in my eye?
Can you prove that I didn’t read the policy? Thought so. I left it out of my post the same as I left out the fact about phone support, faq, docs, usage and benefits pages.
“Cover up a mistake” – What?
“A responsible blogger would correct the headline and original article” – Huh? There is nothing to correct. Should I change “scary” for “awesome” or “stupendous innovation”?
To this end, what mistake am I covering up?
If you don’t believe what I wrote that is your own opinion. I approved your comment because you have a right to express it, even here. If I don’t like what is written on the Google policy that is of my own decision and opinion. Notice this post went into the “Opinion” category.
Second, my response to Peter is not much different to that of the of David Ulevitch at OpenDNS to the comment that Peter left there – “I didn’t mean it to be FUD’y, I’m just telling it the way I see it.” Which isn’t that far off of the comments on David’s post, the one at TechCrunch or the one at ReadWriteWeb.
You wrote that my post “threatens of privacy invasion”. Slow your roll my friend. Really? Because I didn’t write that. Being skeptical of its collection and usage is healthy.
Also, I never said that they combine the data. Never. I state that Google already has those types and many more like the other code pulls from webpages that use Google Code. That is a ton of data. I don’t understand why that is in dispute.
From the policy – “After keeping this data for two weeks, we randomly sample a small subset for permanent storage.
Finally, if you’re interested in knowing what else we log when you use Google Public DNS, here is the full list of items that are included in our permanent logs:”
I think the real problem is that you don’t like Google being compared to Wal-Mart. Get used to it.
# 3 December 2009 at 6:56 pm

Brett Glass said:
The first thing that is of serious concern about this move is that it is anticompetitive. Google is in the Internet search advertising business; so, essentially, are ISPs who advertise via DNS redirection. (The pages often look very much like Google search results, with not just advertising but also search results which list sites to which the user may have intended to go.) In fact, many naive Internet users simply type search terms into the URL bar of their browsers, expecting the browser to magically take them to the right place or at least return appropriate search results. Due to DNS redirection (which is optional on every ISP that does it), there’s a good chance that the user will actually be pointed toward what he or she is looking for.
Google, in essence, is attempting to cut off what is, IMHO, a legitimate revenue stream for one very useful form of competitive “search engine.”
It’s also found another great way to spy on Internet users. With your DNS queries flowing through it servers, it will know where you go, and will be able to merge this information with the dossiers it creates on users via GMail messages, Google Analytics spyware scripts, and DoubleClick spyware tracking cookies.
Wouldn’t use this for the world.
# 3 December 2009 at 8:42 pm

PaulB said:
I work in subpoena compliance. In the past year or so we’ve begun to see subpoena ask for items such as DNS queries and logs. Most, if not all companies do not store such data from DNS, due to the volume of data this would entail. (DNS logs, not to be confused with firewall logs, which could be saved)
But I have been wondering where such expectation for recoverable DNS logs might be originating. Was Google or some other big company logging DNS, and making it available to law enforcement ?
It appears we could have our answer.
So the question now becomes …
Does Google surrender the DNS data it logs under routinely received subpoena? Anyone hazard a guess or have actual knowledge they wish to share ?
The list of what groups have been asking for DNS logs based on my experience would include the DEA, NSA, TSA, DHS, Secret Service, as well as any branch FBI, and the reasons they might be interested are not limited to investigations in federal cases.
A fairly non trivial list of actors.
# 4 December 2009 at 8:17 am
Google Public DNS and FUD - berbs.us said:
[...] are a few examples. Kris Smith at TechStartups: Google Public DNS is a data mining opportunity for Google that goes above and beyond Analytics [...]
# 4 December 2009 at 5:58 pm

PaulB said:
Its easy to dismiss an argument with a name. Call it FUD, its dismissed. I would hope we’re at better standard of intellect here, but perhaps not.
My point still stands. In my line of work, I have seen subpoena from government which asks DNS logs. Five years ago, this was not the case.
Google now has DNS logs.
The burden of proof is on Goog to explain how and why they would NOT be used to provide a record of peoples searches and queries to law enforcement.
Its simple to yell stuff like FUD, harder to think through the consequences of large data stores of DNS queries. Sounds innocent, yet under force of law, I am fairly certain goog would behave not like the starry eyed developer fanboys believe, but rather, like any other corporation handing routine records over on whomever is being asked about. That would presumably mean if your DNS resolver queries were savable by IP, and sortable by IP and date/time, they would absolutely be available to law enforcement should they ask. Its idiotic to think they aren’t already.
The limiting factor used to be DNS records are too large to store for any significant length of time. But google’s resources uniquely makes that argument obsolete. So…
If I were FBI or DEA I would absolutely ask google for DNS records by IP or by google user ID.
# 5 December 2009 at 9:56 am

Leave your response!

Tech Cloud

Tech Categories