Re: [Add] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dprive-dprive-privacy-policy-00.txt

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, tirumal reddy wrote:

>       Section 10 Security Considerations describes well why I think this is
>       not a good idea. Publishing a privacy policy in a computer consumable
>       way has no relationship to the actual DNS server's privacy policy
>       used.
> 
> No, the privacy policy also conveys a URL that points to the human readable privacy policy formation of the DNS
> server. Public DNS resolvers have published privacy policy statements (for example, see
> https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/firefox/). If a firm violates the privacy
> claims, it will most likely face penalty (similar to FTC imposing fine on facebook). 

How and how would any enforcement system work for a variety of DNS
providers all over the world? ISPs? hotels? coffeeshops? Mobile
providers? Will there be an industry standard org? How will this
not devolve into government sanctioned mandatory DNS providers on
my mobile device?

>       This is not a technical wire problem to solve with an RFC. It is a
>       social-economic issue. Can we trust vendor X? And vendor X making
>       claims in JSON about this isn't useful from a technical point of
>       view, no matter how or where and with what such statements are
>       (self)signed.
> 
> Not really, you probably missed the privacy consideration section. User consent is mandatory to use the discovered DoT/DoH
> servers, the section says the following:

How would that not become another "we use cookies, are you okay" screen for which I have no choice but to say "yes"?

>    Users are expected to indicate to their system in some way that they
>    trust certain PAT signers (e.g., if working for Example, Inc., the
>    user's system is configured to trust example.com signing the PAT).

How is that done on my iphone? If I install vendor X application, I
already have to trust them (and google or android, etc). Another screen
of "terms and services" the enduser is forced to scroll through?

>    Separately, the user is expected to indicate to their system their
>    PAT privacy requirements (e.g., logging, etc.).  By doing so, thee DNS
>    client can automatically discover local DNS-over-TLS or DNS-over-
>    HTTPS server, validate the PAT signature and check if the PAT
>    complies with user's privacy needs, prior to using that DNS-over-TLS
>    or DNS-over-HTTPS server for DNS queries.

All of these things come down to one thing. Do you trust the DNS
provider or not. It's really a binary decision. Dividing this up
in a dozen options isn't helping the average user.

>       It's a great topic for consumer advocay organisations, the EFF or
>       ACLU or EU commisioners. I do not think this is a technical problem
>       needing a technical standard from the IETF. And any automated
>       consumption of this leading to changed DNS client behaviour would
>       be dangerous.

I'm still not convinced this statement is wrong. And additionally can
see some serious harmful effects into mandatory censorship if this kind
of system becomes mandatory on people's devices.

Paul