Re: [Doh] GDPR and DoH

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 6, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
>> On 06/04/2019 19:30, Jim Reid wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6 Apr 2019, at 19:04, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> You know you can just turn it off the same way you configure your 
>>> devices on your network. I also don't understand the GDRP issue
>>> you raise: surely all DNS services have the same problems.
>> 
>> Read this: 
>> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent
> 
> Too much text there for me sorry:-)
> 
> FWIW, I also don't get the GDPR angle here. If it's meant as
> an issue of consent related to selection of DNS server, ISTM
> more or less the same - if by picking an ISP I'm supposed to
> have consented to the ISP's choice of recursive that same
> argument seems to apply for a browser-chosen recursive since
> the user chose the browser. (And I'd actually argue there is
> no valid consent as to choice of recursive in either case,
> since IMO a person cannot consent to use of something they
> don't know exists, and people in general do not know that
> DNS recursives exist.)
> 
> So can you explain the specific GDPR-related issue that you
> think is relevant?
> 

Stephen, 

It didn’t take me more than about 30 seconds of reading the linked article to get to the heart of the issue.

It has to do with whether something that requires consent is a necessary part of the service or transaction.

It has been clearly demonstrated that browsers do not have to provide DNS resolution (since they have not done so for about 25 years).

This means that requiring the user to use the browser’s selection of DNS resolver, and implementing a DNS forwarder in the browser, would not be covered by the general acceptance of the browser’s terms. In other words, an extra level of informed user consent would be required for GDPR, and not accepting that second set of terms should not prevent the use of the browser. Tying the two together would be a violation, at least as I understand it as explained by the link Jim provided.


>> 
>> If you need further advice on GDPR, consult a Data Protection
>> Authority or a lawyer who specialises in this field.
>> 

+1

Brian