this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026
515 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

89310 readers
3482 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 36 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

That ought to be illegal.

(No, seriously: disobeying DNS the owner set by DHCP ought to count as "exceeding authorized access" under the CFAA.)

Unfortunately the monkey's paw would curl here and using DNS other than that provided by your ISP would become illegal.

(I know there's a difference between your devices using their network to access the internet and your "purchased" (licensed software running on) your device using your network to access the internet - but the monkey doesn't care)

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

RFC 2132 says DHCP option 6 provides "a list of Domain Name System name servers available to the client". That's a MAY use, not a MUST use. You are welcome to block DNS requests to outside servers if you prefer.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

RFCs are subordinate to laws. If I, the device and network owner, want my device to use the DNS I set and the device does differently, I want the rogue corp prosecuted and IDGAF what some goddamn RFC says!

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't think you'd be able to find a court receptive to that argument.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Every court that disagrees is tyrannical and needs to be fucking abolished.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

All of that because you don't understand how tech works?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I understand perfectly well how tech works. I also understand how property rights work -- or at least, how they're supposed to work.

The real question is, why does a person asserting their right not to be abused by corporations apparently offend your sensibilities so much that you have to tell bullshit lies in some desperate, pathetic attempt to smear me?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago

No, tell me how you really feel!

[–] technohacker@programming.dev 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Counter point on that, that might affect the legality of DNS over HTTPS

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No, because the law cares about intent, not technical details. Having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that's what I, the owner, wanted is fine; having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that's what some non-owner entity wanted against my will as the owner is not.

[–] aksdb@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Rather: they are free to do protocol negotiation with the DNS server I supply. If it speaks DoH, go for it.