<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_1532258</id>
	<title>A Look At the Safety of Google Public DNS</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259944500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>darthcamaro writes <i>"Yesterday we discussed Google's launch of its new <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/03/1814238/Google-Launches-Public-DNS-Resolver">Public DNS service</a>. Now Metasploit founder and CSO at Rapid7, H D Moore, investigates how well-protected Google's service is against the Kaminsky DNS flaw. Moore has put together a <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/12/is-google-public-dns-safe-look.html">mapping of Google's source port distribution on the Public DNS service</a>. In his view, it looks like the source ports are sufficiently random, even though they are limited to a small range of ports. The InternetNews report on Moore's research concludes: 'What Moore's preliminary research clearly demonstrates to me is that Google really does need to live up to its promise here. Unlike a regular ISP, Google will be subject to more scrutiny (and research) than other DNS providers.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>darthcamaro writes " Yesterday we discussed Google 's launch of its new Public DNS service .
Now Metasploit founder and CSO at Rapid7 , H D Moore , investigates how well-protected Google 's service is against the Kaminsky DNS flaw .
Moore has put together a mapping of Google 's source port distribution on the Public DNS service .
In his view , it looks like the source ports are sufficiently random , even though they are limited to a small range of ports .
The InternetNews report on Moore 's research concludes : 'What Moore 's preliminary research clearly demonstrates to me is that Google really does need to live up to its promise here .
Unlike a regular ISP , Google will be subject to more scrutiny ( and research ) than other DNS providers .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>darthcamaro writes "Yesterday we discussed Google's launch of its new Public DNS service.
Now Metasploit founder and CSO at Rapid7, H D Moore, investigates how well-protected Google's service is against the Kaminsky DNS flaw.
Moore has put together a mapping of Google's source port distribution on the Public DNS service.
In his view, it looks like the source ports are sufficiently random, even though they are limited to a small range of ports.
The InternetNews report on Moore's research concludes: 'What Moore's preliminary research clearly demonstrates to me is that Google really does need to live up to its promise here.
Unlike a regular ISP, Google will be subject to more scrutiny (and research) than other DNS providers.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327714</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1259959380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy. Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google, so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.</p><p>I'm not even entirely convinced about the benefit of using google's; your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.</p></div><p>So what you are saying is, you are upset at the idea of google logging your dns traffic, yet NOT upset with the idea of your ISP logging your DNS traffic and selling it to google?</p><p>Because google only gave you a legal document stating they wouldn't record your traffic longer than 48 hrs and would not tie those results with any other google service.  You know, a legal document that you can use in court.</p><p>Your ISP has provided no such document, and as you admit to sincerely doubt google would avoid doing what is now illegal, so you must equally doubt your ISP would avoid doing it too, probably more so since your ISP likely has no such legal document.</p><p>Sounds to me the only way you can sleep easy at night would be to switching to google, and letting your doubt rest easy knowing you now have the law on your side, and moving away from your ISP that most likely IS (and if not, could legally do so) what you are so worried of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy .
Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google , so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.I 'm not even entirely convinced about the benefit of using google 's ; your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive , even if it does have a higher miss rate.So what you are saying is , you are upset at the idea of google logging your dns traffic , yet NOT upset with the idea of your ISP logging your DNS traffic and selling it to google ? Because google only gave you a legal document stating they would n't record your traffic longer than 48 hrs and would not tie those results with any other google service .
You know , a legal document that you can use in court.Your ISP has provided no such document , and as you admit to sincerely doubt google would avoid doing what is now illegal , so you must equally doubt your ISP would avoid doing it too , probably more so since your ISP likely has no such legal document.Sounds to me the only way you can sleep easy at night would be to switching to google , and letting your doubt rest easy knowing you now have the law on your side , and moving away from your ISP that most likely IS ( and if not , could legally do so ) what you are so worried of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy.
Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google, so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.I'm not even entirely convinced about the benefit of using google's; your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.So what you are saying is, you are upset at the idea of google logging your dns traffic, yet NOT upset with the idea of your ISP logging your DNS traffic and selling it to google?Because google only gave you a legal document stating they wouldn't record your traffic longer than 48 hrs and would not tie those results with any other google service.
You know, a legal document that you can use in court.Your ISP has provided no such document, and as you admit to sincerely doubt google would avoid doing what is now illegal, so you must equally doubt your ISP would avoid doing it too, probably more so since your ISP likely has no such legal document.Sounds to me the only way you can sleep easy at night would be to switching to google, and letting your doubt rest easy knowing you now have the law on your side, and moving away from your ISP that most likely IS (and if not, could legally do so) what you are so worried of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325870</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>Jellybob</author>
	<datestamp>1259951700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This also helps in situations where your ISP is highjacking responses stating that a domain doesn't exist, and rerouting them to a search engine.</p><p>It's all very well having that happen for HTTP requests, but it can cause havoc with things like e-mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This also helps in situations where your ISP is highjacking responses stating that a domain does n't exist , and rerouting them to a search engine.It 's all very well having that happen for HTTP requests , but it can cause havoc with things like e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This also helps in situations where your ISP is highjacking responses stating that a domain doesn't exist, and rerouting them to a search engine.It's all very well having that happen for HTTP requests, but it can cause havoc with things like e-mail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326524</id>
	<title>Re:first lookup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One advantage is that unlike 4.2.2.x, you have explicit permission to use this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One advantage is that unlike 4.2.2.x , you have explicit permission to use this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One advantage is that unlike 4.2.2.x, you have explicit permission to use this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30328194</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>DarthBart</author>
	<datestamp>1259918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[a-i].root-servers.net</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ a-i ] .root-servers.net</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[a-i].root-servers.net</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327246</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1259957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a very big difference between "government forcibly taking data from me" and "voluntarily giving up data to Google in exchange for services".</p><p>Furthermore, I simply don't care and never have. You, along with others who raise concerns about privacy interests, miss that very basic possibility. Most people just don't give a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a very big difference between " government forcibly taking data from me " and " voluntarily giving up data to Google in exchange for services " .Furthermore , I simply do n't care and never have .
You , along with others who raise concerns about privacy interests , miss that very basic possibility .
Most people just do n't give a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a very big difference between "government forcibly taking data from me" and "voluntarily giving up data to Google in exchange for services".Furthermore, I simply don't care and never have.
You, along with others who raise concerns about privacy interests, miss that very basic possibility.
Most people just don't give a damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325114</id>
	<title>And the worst case scenario?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It fails miserably, Google revokes it, and we all go back to loving them.</p><p>Everyone loves taking a shot at Google, but when they are providing a new FREE service - I can't see it destroying their public image all that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It fails miserably , Google revokes it , and we all go back to loving them.Everyone loves taking a shot at Google , but when they are providing a new FREE service - I ca n't see it destroying their public image all that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It fails miserably, Google revokes it, and we all go back to loving them.Everyone loves taking a shot at Google, but when they are providing a new FREE service - I can't see it destroying their public image all that much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327848</id>
	<title>Still goes through my ISP, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259959920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not familiar with all the details behind DNS, but what prevents an ISP from noticing the DNS lookups coming from a user's machine are targeted at the Google DNS IPs, and simply blocking them, or sending the ISP's preferred response instead?  Are DNS requests subject to this kind of MITM issue?  Again, I don't know much about DNS, so some insight would be appreciated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not familiar with all the details behind DNS , but what prevents an ISP from noticing the DNS lookups coming from a user 's machine are targeted at the Google DNS IPs , and simply blocking them , or sending the ISP 's preferred response instead ?
Are DNS requests subject to this kind of MITM issue ?
Again , I do n't know much about DNS , so some insight would be appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not familiar with all the details behind DNS, but what prevents an ISP from noticing the DNS lookups coming from a user's machine are targeted at the Google DNS IPs, and simply blocking them, or sending the ISP's preferred response instead?
Are DNS requests subject to this kind of MITM issue?
Again, I don't know much about DNS, so some insight would be appreciated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327366</id>
	<title>Already banned in China</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1259957820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reports from my friend inside the GFW, both DNS servers already banned by the Chinese government...wth...and openDNS stayed untouched for like ever...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reports from my friend inside the GFW , both DNS servers already banned by the Chinese government...wth...and openDNS stayed untouched for like ever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reports from my friend inside the GFW, both DNS servers already banned by the Chinese government...wth...and openDNS stayed untouched for like ever...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326292</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1259953560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes freedom isn't about saying no, but about the fact that you can. I can't say no to the border patrol, I can to Google.</p><p>More relevant, I have knowledge of the border patrol misusing their power and little  evidence that they've actually helped me in any concrete manner. The revese holds for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes freedom is n't about saying no , but about the fact that you can .
I ca n't say no to the border patrol , I can to Google.More relevant , I have knowledge of the border patrol misusing their power and little evidence that they 've actually helped me in any concrete manner .
The revese holds for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes freedom isn't about saying no, but about the fact that you can.
I can't say no to the border patrol, I can to Google.More relevant, I have knowledge of the border patrol misusing their power and little  evidence that they've actually helped me in any concrete manner.
The revese holds for Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30355058</id>
	<title>Why don't google searches simply return IP</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1260210120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If google has the DNS then Why doesn't  google return the text-url when they could just return the numerical IP address in the link directly?  That way you could skip the DNS step entirely.  FOr sites you visit a lot they are probably already cached so a large fraction of uncached links come from google searches so this optimization might matter and it certainly would make google searches seem faster</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If google has the DNS then Why does n't google return the text-url when they could just return the numerical IP address in the link directly ?
That way you could skip the DNS step entirely .
FOr sites you visit a lot they are probably already cached so a large fraction of uncached links come from google searches so this optimization might matter and it certainly would make google searches seem faster</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If google has the DNS then Why doesn't  google return the text-url when they could just return the numerical IP address in the link directly?
That way you could skip the DNS step entirely.
FOr sites you visit a lot they are probably already cached so a large fraction of uncached links come from google searches so this optimization might matter and it certainly would make google searches seem faster</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327390</id>
	<title>\% of users that don't use DHCP assigned DNS</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259957940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What percentage of total users use DNS that is not assigned from their ISP?  I would guess a good percentage of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd uses a DNS that is not assigned via their ISP.  But out of the total population of internet users, using non-IPS DNS servers has got to be pretty small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What percentage of total users use DNS that is not assigned from their ISP ?
I would guess a good percentage of the / .
crowd uses a DNS that is not assigned via their ISP .
But out of the total population of internet users , using non-IPS DNS servers has got to be pretty small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What percentage of total users use DNS that is not assigned from their ISP?
I would guess a good percentage of the /.
crowd uses a DNS that is not assigned via their ISP.
But out of the total population of internet users, using non-IPS DNS servers has got to be pretty small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30331220</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259933280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is that people seem to care what other people do in their spare time.  Who gives a shit if you look at porn or disassemble viruses for a hobby?  Certainly your employer shouldn't care, and neither should your friends, your mother in law, or the church next door.  People are resorting to privacy to do the things they want to do instead of simply demanding that everyone's harmless personal choices are perfectly acceptable in a free and open society.  That just fragments society into a bunch of cliques where all the members of one clique think that people from other cliques are weird for doing whatever secret things they do in private.  Humanity won't completely rise out of the dark ages until people can proudly be human without the crutch of privacy to hide their perfectly justifiable behavior from other people.  Privacy, much like copyright and patents, is effectively over in the information age, and good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that people seem to care what other people do in their spare time .
Who gives a shit if you look at porn or disassemble viruses for a hobby ?
Certainly your employer should n't care , and neither should your friends , your mother in law , or the church next door .
People are resorting to privacy to do the things they want to do instead of simply demanding that everyone 's harmless personal choices are perfectly acceptable in a free and open society .
That just fragments society into a bunch of cliques where all the members of one clique think that people from other cliques are weird for doing whatever secret things they do in private .
Humanity wo n't completely rise out of the dark ages until people can proudly be human without the crutch of privacy to hide their perfectly justifiable behavior from other people .
Privacy , much like copyright and patents , is effectively over in the information age , and good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is that people seem to care what other people do in their spare time.
Who gives a shit if you look at porn or disassemble viruses for a hobby?
Certainly your employer shouldn't care, and neither should your friends, your mother in law, or the church next door.
People are resorting to privacy to do the things they want to do instead of simply demanding that everyone's harmless personal choices are perfectly acceptable in a free and open society.
That just fragments society into a bunch of cliques where all the members of one clique think that people from other cliques are weird for doing whatever secret things they do in private.
Humanity won't completely rise out of the dark ages until people can proudly be human without the crutch of privacy to hide their perfectly justifiable behavior from other people.
Privacy, much like copyright and patents, is effectively over in the information age, and good riddance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274</id>
	<title>I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it might be useful for people whose ISP DNS server is slow.  That didn't happen to me since my dialup days.  Besides, now I simply run my own caching DNS server.  It's not hard to set up at all. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it might be useful for people whose ISP DNS server is slow .
That did n't happen to me since my dialup days .
Besides , now I simply run my own caching DNS server .
It 's not hard to set up at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it might be useful for people whose ISP DNS server is slow.
That didn't happen to me since my dialup days.
Besides, now I simply run my own caching DNS server.
It's not hard to set up at all. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30330676</id>
	<title>"Small range of ports"?  Really?</title>
	<author>maXXwell</author>
	<datestamp>1259929680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In his view, it looks like the source ports are sufficiently random,<br>even though they are limited to a small range of ports."</p><p>The distribution graph appears to show Google resolver using random ports<br>between 32768 and 65535.  While that's only half the ports available,<br>it's misleading to characterize it as "a small range of ports".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In his view , it looks like the source ports are sufficiently random,even though they are limited to a small range of ports .
" The distribution graph appears to show Google resolver using random portsbetween 32768 and 65535 .
While that 's only half the ports available,it 's misleading to characterize it as " a small range of ports " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In his view, it looks like the source ports are sufficiently random,even though they are limited to a small range of ports.
"The distribution graph appears to show Google resolver using random portsbetween 32768 and 65535.
While that's only half the ports available,it's misleading to characterize it as "a small range of ports".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30332900</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>libcrypto</author>
	<datestamp>1259951400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have used OpenDNS. I agree it is faster and I prefer that to my local ISP's dns servers. But the NXDOMAIN thingy is not so easy for me to turn off since I have a dynamic ip. I started using 4.2.2.2 as primary because of that. Yesterday I changed to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4. Hopefully I don't have to change this for a long time now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used OpenDNS .
I agree it is faster and I prefer that to my local ISP 's dns servers .
But the NXDOMAIN thingy is not so easy for me to turn off since I have a dynamic ip .
I started using 4.2.2.2 as primary because of that .
Yesterday I changed to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 .
Hopefully I do n't have to change this for a long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used OpenDNS.
I agree it is faster and I prefer that to my local ISP's dns servers.
But the NXDOMAIN thingy is not so easy for me to turn off since I have a dynamic ip.
I started using 4.2.2.2 as primary because of that.
Yesterday I changed to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4.
Hopefully I don't have to change this for a long time now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30335160</id>
	<title>You call that a small range?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the picture in the article it looks like they have 15 bits of entropy in the port number and 16 bits of entropy in the ID. That's a total of 31 bits of entropy out of 32 theoretically possible. They also add entropy through the case of letters in the domain name itself (and maybe also the lower bits of the IP address, but I haven't verified that). Sounds like this all adds up to 40 or more bits of entropy. With 40 bits of entropy the chance of successful poisoning would be vanishing small.<br>
&nbsp; <br>How do they do the asynchronous updates of entries that are about to expire? If they randomize the timing of those and use TCP rather than UDP they can probably add another 20 bits of entropy right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the picture in the article it looks like they have 15 bits of entropy in the port number and 16 bits of entropy in the ID .
That 's a total of 31 bits of entropy out of 32 theoretically possible .
They also add entropy through the case of letters in the domain name itself ( and maybe also the lower bits of the IP address , but I have n't verified that ) .
Sounds like this all adds up to 40 or more bits of entropy .
With 40 bits of entropy the chance of successful poisoning would be vanishing small .
  How do they do the asynchronous updates of entries that are about to expire ?
If they randomize the timing of those and use TCP rather than UDP they can probably add another 20 bits of entropy right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the picture in the article it looks like they have 15 bits of entropy in the port number and 16 bits of entropy in the ID.
That's a total of 31 bits of entropy out of 32 theoretically possible.
They also add entropy through the case of letters in the domain name itself (and maybe also the lower bits of the IP address, but I haven't verified that).
Sounds like this all adds up to 40 or more bits of entropy.
With 40 bits of entropy the chance of successful poisoning would be vanishing small.
  How do they do the asynchronous updates of entries that are about to expire?
If they randomize the timing of those and use TCP rather than UDP they can probably add another 20 bits of entropy right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325054</id>
	<title>Kaminsky DNS flaw == HOGWASH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dan K has been on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., never could cite a single example of an in-the-wild, widespread exploit of the Kaminsky DNS flaw.</p><p>Kaminsky Bug == HOGWASH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan K has been on /. , never could cite a single example of an in-the-wild , widespread exploit of the Kaminsky DNS flaw.Kaminsky Bug = = HOGWASH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan K has been on /., never could cite a single example of an in-the-wild, widespread exploit of the Kaminsky DNS flaw.Kaminsky Bug == HOGWASH</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325872</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1259951700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read about this at all, you would know that Google does use the records to generate stats (as in: people who visit slashdot.org have a 2\% chance of visiting thinkgeek.com). Google claims they do not keep DNS records in a manner which can identify individuals.</p><p>That said, the big telcos can snoop your DNS queries and DO turn that info over to government agencies. If your ISP or your government want to know who Dogun of Slashdot is IRL, they need only observe that the same IP which posts as you here also logs in as Thomas Q Payne at Chase bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read about this at all , you would know that Google does use the records to generate stats ( as in : people who visit slashdot.org have a 2 \ % chance of visiting thinkgeek.com ) .
Google claims they do not keep DNS records in a manner which can identify individuals.That said , the big telcos can snoop your DNS queries and DO turn that info over to government agencies .
If your ISP or your government want to know who Dogun of Slashdot is IRL , they need only observe that the same IP which posts as you here also logs in as Thomas Q Payne at Chase bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read about this at all, you would know that Google does use the records to generate stats (as in: people who visit slashdot.org have a 2\% chance of visiting thinkgeek.com).
Google claims they do not keep DNS records in a manner which can identify individuals.That said, the big telcos can snoop your DNS queries and DO turn that info over to government agencies.
If your ISP or your government want to know who Dogun of Slashdot is IRL, they need only observe that the same IP which posts as you here also logs in as Thomas Q Payne at Chase bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services , and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30341320</id>
	<title>Re:Already banned in China</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1260037800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you think the kind of Chinese people that is obsessed with 8 is the kind knows how to change his DNS on his router?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think the kind of Chinese people that is obsessed with 8 is the kind knows how to change his DNS on his router ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think the kind of Chinese people that is obsessed with 8 is the kind knows how to change his DNS on his router?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30333928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</id>
	<title>Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1259949840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it amazing that nobody seems to notice that adding an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon\_(signals\_intelligence)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ECHELON</a> [wikipedia.org] and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore\_(software)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">DCS1000</a> [wikipedia.org] feed to Google is making it like the NSA, but where people actually VOLUNTEER data.  In addition, it's <a href="http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Terms of Service</a> [google.com] give it more legal freedom to use and abuse your information and intellectual property than even the US border control can with accessing laptops of people entering the country.</p><p>It appears 8+ years of indoctrination is paying off big time - nobody appears to remember that <a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12" title="un.org" rel="nofollow">privacy is a basic right</a> [un.org].  All it takes is some BS about "not being evil" for people to miss the shocking depth to which they can access all your personal data.  Even the stuff they don't hold themselves will come up through the search engine.  By matching up DNS records they will be able to add your entire Internet activity to your identity.</p><p>That's going to be fun when you catch some sort of virus downloading porn - and the next time you apply for a job..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it amazing that nobody seems to notice that adding an ECHELON [ wikipedia.org ] and a DCS1000 [ wikipedia.org ] feed to Google is making it like the NSA , but where people actually VOLUNTEER data .
In addition , it 's Terms of Service [ google.com ] give it more legal freedom to use and abuse your information and intellectual property than even the US border control can with accessing laptops of people entering the country.It appears 8 + years of indoctrination is paying off big time - nobody appears to remember that privacy is a basic right [ un.org ] .
All it takes is some BS about " not being evil " for people to miss the shocking depth to which they can access all your personal data .
Even the stuff they do n't hold themselves will come up through the search engine .
By matching up DNS records they will be able to add your entire Internet activity to your identity.That 's going to be fun when you catch some sort of virus downloading porn - and the next time you apply for a job. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it amazing that nobody seems to notice that adding an ECHELON [wikipedia.org] and a DCS1000 [wikipedia.org] feed to Google is making it like the NSA, but where people actually VOLUNTEER data.
In addition, it's Terms of Service [google.com] give it more legal freedom to use and abuse your information and intellectual property than even the US border control can with accessing laptops of people entering the country.It appears 8+ years of indoctrination is paying off big time - nobody appears to remember that privacy is a basic right [un.org].
All it takes is some BS about "not being evil" for people to miss the shocking depth to which they can access all your personal data.
Even the stuff they don't hold themselves will come up through the search engine.
By matching up DNS records they will be able to add your entire Internet activity to your identity.That's going to be fun when you catch some sort of virus downloading porn - and the next time you apply for a job..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325952</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are really that worries about privacy?</p><p>Every time you google, you need to be logged out of all google services: includes blogger, blogspot, picassaweb, youtube, and all the others like analytics, adsense, gmail....</p><p>Clear all your cookies.</p><p>Then reboot your home cable/dsl modem or whatever to get a new IP.</p><p>Then go ahead and do you searches.</p><p>Clear all your cookies.</p><p>Then reboot you home cable/dsl modem or whatever to get a new IP.</p><p>Then it's safe to log back in to google services.</p><p>That should cover you for all googlespying that involves google analytics and tieing your search queries to you.</p><p>Oh, what's that? You aren't THAT worried?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are really that worries about privacy ? Every time you google , you need to be logged out of all google services : includes blogger , blogspot , picassaweb , youtube , and all the others like analytics , adsense , gmail....Clear all your cookies.Then reboot your home cable/dsl modem or whatever to get a new IP.Then go ahead and do you searches.Clear all your cookies.Then reboot you home cable/dsl modem or whatever to get a new IP.Then it 's safe to log back in to google services.That should cover you for all googlespying that involves google analytics and tieing your search queries to you.Oh , what 's that ?
You are n't THAT worried ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are really that worries about privacy?Every time you google, you need to be logged out of all google services: includes blogger, blogspot, picassaweb, youtube, and all the others like analytics, adsense, gmail....Clear all your cookies.Then reboot your home cable/dsl modem or whatever to get a new IP.Then go ahead and do you searches.Clear all your cookies.Then reboot you home cable/dsl modem or whatever to get a new IP.Then it's safe to log back in to google services.That should cover you for all googlespying that involves google analytics and tieing your search queries to you.Oh, what's that?
You aren't THAT worried?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30328770</id>
	<title>Re:And the worst case scenario?</title>
	<author>carpefishus</author>
	<datestamp>1259920740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By 2020 the world will be run by and owned by Google and Taco Bell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By 2020 the world will be run by and owned by Google and Taco Bell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By 2020 the world will be run by and owned by Google and Taco Bell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326426</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>martinmarv</author>
	<datestamp>1259954100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ISP (o2 broadband in the UK) has a particularly bad set of DNS servers that regularly seem to error. Somehow, resetting the router helps, but I think that's because it just gets forwarded to a different pair of o2's DNS servers.</p><p>As a result of this, I've switched to OpenDNS, which hasn't errored at all, so far (about 6 months). However, I'm probably going to try Google's offering because I'd prefer to get a NULL response than a search page if I hit an unresolvable URI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ISP ( o2 broadband in the UK ) has a particularly bad set of DNS servers that regularly seem to error .
Somehow , resetting the router helps , but I think that 's because it just gets forwarded to a different pair of o2 's DNS servers.As a result of this , I 've switched to OpenDNS , which has n't errored at all , so far ( about 6 months ) .
However , I 'm probably going to try Google 's offering because I 'd prefer to get a NULL response than a search page if I hit an unresolvable URI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ISP (o2 broadband in the UK) has a particularly bad set of DNS servers that regularly seem to error.
Somehow, resetting the router helps, but I think that's because it just gets forwarded to a different pair of o2's DNS servers.As a result of this, I've switched to OpenDNS, which hasn't errored at all, so far (about 6 months).
However, I'm probably going to try Google's offering because I'd prefer to get a NULL response than a search page if I hit an unresolvable URI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30348166</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1260110340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen. This was discussed ad nauseum in the previous Slashdot article. That which you rant about might be applicable to all of Google's services <i>except</i> DNS.</p><p><a href="http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy.html" title="google.com">RTFM</a> [google.com]. But since you can't be bothered, I'll spoon-feed you the details. In a nutshell, the only thing that could identify you to Google's resolvers is your IP address. Which, by the way, is neither private or personal. Google has no way of knowing whether there is one person behind hundreds of IPs or hundreds of people behind a single IP. Nevertheless, the IP-based logs are used only for performance and abuse monitoring and are deleted after 24-48 hours.</p><p>Of course, you could get all tinfoil hat and say that Google is simply flat-out lying about their privacy policy. Or that they'll change their tune in a few years after everyone's using the service. But it's always your option to just use your ISP's resolvers, or OpenDNS, or set up your own damn resolver. It's hard to replace Google, The Search Engine, but it's trivial to replace Google, The DNS Resolver and I think they know that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen .
This was discussed ad nauseum in the previous Slashdot article .
That which you rant about might be applicable to all of Google 's services except DNS.RTFM [ google.com ] .
But since you ca n't be bothered , I 'll spoon-feed you the details .
In a nutshell , the only thing that could identify you to Google 's resolvers is your IP address .
Which , by the way , is neither private or personal .
Google has no way of knowing whether there is one person behind hundreds of IPs or hundreds of people behind a single IP .
Nevertheless , the IP-based logs are used only for performance and abuse monitoring and are deleted after 24-48 hours.Of course , you could get all tinfoil hat and say that Google is simply flat-out lying about their privacy policy .
Or that they 'll change their tune in a few years after everyone 's using the service .
But it 's always your option to just use your ISP 's resolvers , or OpenDNS , or set up your own damn resolver .
It 's hard to replace Google , The Search Engine , but it 's trivial to replace Google , The DNS Resolver and I think they know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen.
This was discussed ad nauseum in the previous Slashdot article.
That which you rant about might be applicable to all of Google's services except DNS.RTFM [google.com].
But since you can't be bothered, I'll spoon-feed you the details.
In a nutshell, the only thing that could identify you to Google's resolvers is your IP address.
Which, by the way, is neither private or personal.
Google has no way of knowing whether there is one person behind hundreds of IPs or hundreds of people behind a single IP.
Nevertheless, the IP-based logs are used only for performance and abuse monitoring and are deleted after 24-48 hours.Of course, you could get all tinfoil hat and say that Google is simply flat-out lying about their privacy policy.
Or that they'll change their tune in a few years after everyone's using the service.
But it's always your option to just use your ISP's resolvers, or OpenDNS, or set up your own damn resolver.
It's hard to replace Google, The Search Engine, but it's trivial to replace Google, The DNS Resolver and I think they know that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</id>
	<title>Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy. Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google, so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.</p><p>I'm not even entirely convinced about the benefit of using google's; your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy .
Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google , so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.I 'm not even entirely convinced about the benefit of using google 's ; your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive , even if it does have a higher miss rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy.
Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google, so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.I'm not even entirely convinced about the benefit of using google's; your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326022</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1259952420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, it might be useful for people whose ISP DNS server is slow.  That didn't happen to me since my dialup days.  Besides, now I simply run my own caching DNS server.  It's not hard to set up at all. </p></div><p>I wonder about this myself.  Google is a marketing company so you would generally expect them to always appeal to the widest audience possible.  As valuable as DNS service is, it's also not something that average users care about or think about.  Most users who are dissatisfied with their DNS performance would say "the Internet is slow today" and not "I am experiencing unusually high latency from my ISP's DNS server".  This is just a guess but they seem to be targeting two broad categories of user:</p><ul>
<li>Users who are specifically dissatisfied with their current DNS performance.  These are users who are knowledgable enough to understand what DNS is and that they can change servers, yet are unable to or reluctant to run their own caching nameserver.</li><li>Users who currently use OpenDNS, or who use an ISP DNS server that also breaks NXDOMAIN behavior in order to serve advertisements.  Google also wants to serve advertisements, of course, but they do it without breaking the DNS protocol.  For these users, switching to Google's server would be a way to protest these practices by voting with their feet. </li></ul><p>
Personally, I just run my own caching nameserver.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it might be useful for people whose ISP DNS server is slow .
That did n't happen to me since my dialup days .
Besides , now I simply run my own caching DNS server .
It 's not hard to set up at all .
I wonder about this myself .
Google is a marketing company so you would generally expect them to always appeal to the widest audience possible .
As valuable as DNS service is , it 's also not something that average users care about or think about .
Most users who are dissatisfied with their DNS performance would say " the Internet is slow today " and not " I am experiencing unusually high latency from my ISP 's DNS server " .
This is just a guess but they seem to be targeting two broad categories of user : Users who are specifically dissatisfied with their current DNS performance .
These are users who are knowledgable enough to understand what DNS is and that they can change servers , yet are unable to or reluctant to run their own caching nameserver.Users who currently use OpenDNS , or who use an ISP DNS server that also breaks NXDOMAIN behavior in order to serve advertisements .
Google also wants to serve advertisements , of course , but they do it without breaking the DNS protocol .
For these users , switching to Google 's server would be a way to protest these practices by voting with their feet .
Personally , I just run my own caching nameserver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it might be useful for people whose ISP DNS server is slow.
That didn't happen to me since my dialup days.
Besides, now I simply run my own caching DNS server.
It's not hard to set up at all.
I wonder about this myself.
Google is a marketing company so you would generally expect them to always appeal to the widest audience possible.
As valuable as DNS service is, it's also not something that average users care about or think about.
Most users who are dissatisfied with their DNS performance would say "the Internet is slow today" and not "I am experiencing unusually high latency from my ISP's DNS server".
This is just a guess but they seem to be targeting two broad categories of user:
Users who are specifically dissatisfied with their current DNS performance.
These are users who are knowledgable enough to understand what DNS is and that they can change servers, yet are unable to or reluctant to run their own caching nameserver.Users who currently use OpenDNS, or who use an ISP DNS server that also breaks NXDOMAIN behavior in order to serve advertisements.
Google also wants to serve advertisements, of course, but they do it without breaking the DNS protocol.
For these users, switching to Google's server would be a way to protest these practices by voting with their feet.
Personally, I just run my own caching nameserver.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325996</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>Corporate Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1259952300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/named.root" title="internic.net" rel="nofollow">From here</a> [internic.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>From here [ internic.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From here [internic.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30333928</id>
	<title>Re:Already banned in China</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1260013320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was actually wondering if they obtained those IP addresses (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) specifically to appeal to Chinese people.</p><p>The number 8 is considered <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers\_in\_Chinese\_culture#Eight" title="wikipedia.org">very lucky</a> [wikipedia.org] in Chinese culture. The appeal of the number 8 is noticeable here in Vancouver, where we have a large Chinese community. It appears on many personalized licence plates, for example, and I've heard Realtors claim that houses with 8's in the address generate more interest from Chinese buyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was actually wondering if they obtained those IP addresses ( 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 ) specifically to appeal to Chinese people.The number 8 is considered very lucky [ wikipedia.org ] in Chinese culture .
The appeal of the number 8 is noticeable here in Vancouver , where we have a large Chinese community .
It appears on many personalized licence plates , for example , and I 've heard Realtors claim that houses with 8 's in the address generate more interest from Chinese buyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was actually wondering if they obtained those IP addresses (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) specifically to appeal to Chinese people.The number 8 is considered very lucky [wikipedia.org] in Chinese culture.
The appeal of the number 8 is noticeable here in Vancouver, where we have a large Chinese community.
It appears on many personalized licence plates, for example, and I've heard Realtors claim that houses with 8's in the address generate more interest from Chinese buyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326162</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1259953020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that Google is offering value for your data.  If you find the data more valuable than their service, don't use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that Google is offering value for your data .
If you find the data more valuable than their service , do n't use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that Google is offering value for your data.
If you find the data more valuable than their service, don't use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325688</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1259950980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.</i>

</p><p>I set it up on my laptop and I can't see any difference between that and my desktop in terms of speed.  I'm going to leave it on my laptop which connects through different hotspots with different DNS providers.

</p><p>Google can have my DNS records while I'm on the road. I think it's a great service and the kind of really neat thing that's pretty rare in corporate culture these days. We should be giving them props even if you choose not to use it.  But around here no good deed goes unpunished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive , even if it does have a higher miss rate .
I set it up on my laptop and I ca n't see any difference between that and my desktop in terms of speed .
I 'm going to leave it on my laptop which connects through different hotspots with different DNS providers .
Google can have my DNS records while I 'm on the road .
I think it 's a great service and the kind of really neat thing that 's pretty rare in corporate culture these days .
We should be giving them props even if you choose not to use it .
But around here no good deed goes unpunished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.
I set it up on my laptop and I can't see any difference between that and my desktop in terms of speed.
I'm going to leave it on my laptop which connects through different hotspots with different DNS providers.
Google can have my DNS records while I'm on the road.
I think it's a great service and the kind of really neat thing that's pretty rare in corporate culture these days.
We should be giving them props even if you choose not to use it.
But around here no good deed goes unpunished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30330250</id>
	<title>Yippee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259927220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seen any botnets using an open DNS service?<br>Unrestricted access will always be targets of<br>ruffians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seen any botnets using an open DNS service ? Unrestricted access will always be targets ofruffians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seen any botnets using an open DNS service?Unrestricted access will always be targets ofruffians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325992</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1259952300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.</p></div><p>I switched to OpenDNS a while back because we were having so many problems with our local ISP's DNS.</p><p>The issue, at the time, was straight-up DNS failures.  I don't know if they were making changes or if someone tripped over a power cord...  But we weren't able to resolve anything - even though I could ping by IP address.  So I plugged in the OpenDNS servers and everything started working again.</p><p>Since that time I've done some un-scientific testing and found that OpenDNS's servers are consistently faster than my local ISP's.  It'll take several moments to even look up a name with my local IPS's DNS.  OpenDNS can find the server almost instantly.</p><p>Then there's the fun stuff with ISPs playing with your NXDOMAIN results...  There was a lot of talk for a while about redirecting folks to search pages to generate advertising.  OpenDNS does this by default, but it is very easy to opt-out.  And it is done on their end of things, so I don't have to remember to set a cookie or anything like that.  You just tell them no NXDOMAIN weirdness from my address, and it is done.</p><p>So...  I could easily see switching to Google's DNS if you've got slow servers at your local ISP, or if your ISP is redirecting your NXDOMAIN results.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My real concern with Google DNS is privacy. Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google, so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.</p></div><p>I'm not sure I really care...</p><p>I mean, There's probably some kind of record or cache being generated even without Google's DNS being involved.  I know we do some logging at pretty much every business we support, and our own internal network is doing some monitoring as well.  I just kind of assume that various ISPs along the way are doing similar things.</p><p>Further, pretty much every website you visit is going to log you and drop a cookie on your machine.</p><p>I mean, I'm sure Google will try to use this information to improve their advertising revenues...  They'd be silly not to...  But I'm just having a hard time getting worried about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive , even if it does have a higher miss rate.I switched to OpenDNS a while back because we were having so many problems with our local ISP 's DNS.The issue , at the time , was straight-up DNS failures .
I do n't know if they were making changes or if someone tripped over a power cord... But we were n't able to resolve anything - even though I could ping by IP address .
So I plugged in the OpenDNS servers and everything started working again.Since that time I 've done some un-scientific testing and found that OpenDNS 's servers are consistently faster than my local ISP 's .
It 'll take several moments to even look up a name with my local IPS 's DNS .
OpenDNS can find the server almost instantly.Then there 's the fun stuff with ISPs playing with your NXDOMAIN results... There was a lot of talk for a while about redirecting folks to search pages to generate advertising .
OpenDNS does this by default , but it is very easy to opt-out .
And it is done on their end of things , so I do n't have to remember to set a cookie or anything like that .
You just tell them no NXDOMAIN weirdness from my address , and it is done.So... I could easily see switching to Google 's DNS if you 've got slow servers at your local ISP , or if your ISP is redirecting your NXDOMAIN results.My real concern with Google DNS is privacy .
Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google , so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.I 'm not sure I really care...I mean , There 's probably some kind of record or cache being generated even without Google 's DNS being involved .
I know we do some logging at pretty much every business we support , and our own internal network is doing some monitoring as well .
I just kind of assume that various ISPs along the way are doing similar things.Further , pretty much every website you visit is going to log you and drop a cookie on your machine.I mean , I 'm sure Google will try to use this information to improve their advertising revenues... They 'd be silly not to... But I 'm just having a hard time getting worried about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your local DNS server hierarchy is going to be far more responsive, even if it does have a higher miss rate.I switched to OpenDNS a while back because we were having so many problems with our local ISP's DNS.The issue, at the time, was straight-up DNS failures.
I don't know if they were making changes or if someone tripped over a power cord...  But we weren't able to resolve anything - even though I could ping by IP address.
So I plugged in the OpenDNS servers and everything started working again.Since that time I've done some un-scientific testing and found that OpenDNS's servers are consistently faster than my local ISP's.
It'll take several moments to even look up a name with my local IPS's DNS.
OpenDNS can find the server almost instantly.Then there's the fun stuff with ISPs playing with your NXDOMAIN results...  There was a lot of talk for a while about redirecting folks to search pages to generate advertising.
OpenDNS does this by default, but it is very easy to opt-out.
And it is done on their end of things, so I don't have to remember to set a cookie or anything like that.
You just tell them no NXDOMAIN weirdness from my address, and it is done.So...  I could easily see switching to Google's DNS if you've got slow servers at your local ISP, or if your ISP is redirecting your NXDOMAIN results.My real concern with Google DNS is privacy.
Your DNS records are extremely valuable to google, so I sincerely doubt google is not going to record them.I'm not sure I really care...I mean, There's probably some kind of record or cache being generated even without Google's DNS being involved.
I know we do some logging at pretty much every business we support, and our own internal network is doing some monitoring as well.
I just kind of assume that various ISPs along the way are doing similar things.Further, pretty much every website you visit is going to log you and drop a cookie on your machine.I mean, I'm sure Google will try to use this information to improve their advertising revenues...  They'd be silly not to...  But I'm just having a hard time getting worried about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30354644</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>Blymie</author>
	<datestamp>1260208440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue with many corporations storing data, is not necessarily what they are doing with that information now.  It is:</p><p>1) whether or not their servers are infiltrated, and therefore the data is mined by other, untrustworthies</p><p>2) what happens when the government decides to demand information</p><p>Google has had many break ins.  Even the best controlled environment can be compromised, and Google's sheer size and scope, indicates a greater exposed presence.  I would suspect that out of their vast number of offices, their vast exposed services, that on some level they are currently, and always will be, compromised.</p><p>One also has to consider that in any corporation of Google's size, there will be illegal activities by various employees, primarily for financial gain.  There will also be various government agents for the same reason, undercover and otherwise working for Google in good stead.</p><p>On top of this, Google has willingly handed over information to governments around the world.  They comply with court orders and domestic law, which makes sense for any organization.  Such as the case is, you not only have to worry about today's data, but what happens to any data they have ever had, and kept.  Law enforcement agencies could simply seize all backups, seize current backups and work on restoring older backups on those same tapes, etc.</p><p>One must always be concerned with how data collected today, may be used two years from now.  Look at the whole Bush fiasco.  Telcos, WITHOUT EVEN ANY LEGAL REASON TO DO SO, simply handed over data illegally to the government.  The change happened almost instantly after 9/11, and within a few months, millions of citizens were suddenly being watched by government agencies in the US.</p><p>I really don't see how immune Google is to this.  How many gag orders are they under right now?  How many breaches have there been?</p><p>You don't know, I don't know, but it would be foolish to assume that when Google says they only retain for 48 hours, that this doesn't mean records are not kept by other means.. some not even in Google's control...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with many corporations storing data , is not necessarily what they are doing with that information now .
It is : 1 ) whether or not their servers are infiltrated , and therefore the data is mined by other , untrustworthies2 ) what happens when the government decides to demand informationGoogle has had many break ins .
Even the best controlled environment can be compromised , and Google 's sheer size and scope , indicates a greater exposed presence .
I would suspect that out of their vast number of offices , their vast exposed services , that on some level they are currently , and always will be , compromised.One also has to consider that in any corporation of Google 's size , there will be illegal activities by various employees , primarily for financial gain .
There will also be various government agents for the same reason , undercover and otherwise working for Google in good stead.On top of this , Google has willingly handed over information to governments around the world .
They comply with court orders and domestic law , which makes sense for any organization .
Such as the case is , you not only have to worry about today 's data , but what happens to any data they have ever had , and kept .
Law enforcement agencies could simply seize all backups , seize current backups and work on restoring older backups on those same tapes , etc.One must always be concerned with how data collected today , may be used two years from now .
Look at the whole Bush fiasco .
Telcos , WITHOUT EVEN ANY LEGAL REASON TO DO SO , simply handed over data illegally to the government .
The change happened almost instantly after 9/11 , and within a few months , millions of citizens were suddenly being watched by government agencies in the US.I really do n't see how immune Google is to this .
How many gag orders are they under right now ?
How many breaches have there been ? You do n't know , I do n't know , but it would be foolish to assume that when Google says they only retain for 48 hours , that this does n't mean records are not kept by other means.. some not even in Google 's control.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with many corporations storing data, is not necessarily what they are doing with that information now.
It is:1) whether or not their servers are infiltrated, and therefore the data is mined by other, untrustworthies2) what happens when the government decides to demand informationGoogle has had many break ins.
Even the best controlled environment can be compromised, and Google's sheer size and scope, indicates a greater exposed presence.
I would suspect that out of their vast number of offices, their vast exposed services, that on some level they are currently, and always will be, compromised.One also has to consider that in any corporation of Google's size, there will be illegal activities by various employees, primarily for financial gain.
There will also be various government agents for the same reason, undercover and otherwise working for Google in good stead.On top of this, Google has willingly handed over information to governments around the world.
They comply with court orders and domestic law, which makes sense for any organization.
Such as the case is, you not only have to worry about today's data, but what happens to any data they have ever had, and kept.
Law enforcement agencies could simply seize all backups, seize current backups and work on restoring older backups on those same tapes, etc.One must always be concerned with how data collected today, may be used two years from now.
Look at the whole Bush fiasco.
Telcos, WITHOUT EVEN ANY LEGAL REASON TO DO SO, simply handed over data illegally to the government.
The change happened almost instantly after 9/11, and within a few months, millions of citizens were suddenly being watched by government agencies in the US.I really don't see how immune Google is to this.
How many gag orders are they under right now?
How many breaches have there been?You don't know, I don't know, but it would be foolish to assume that when Google says they only retain for 48 hours, that this doesn't mean records are not kept by other means.. some not even in Google's control...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30330352</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259927700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They haven't majorly screwed anyone yet, while most of their competitors (and a great many ISPs) have.</p><p>Frankly, I'm more worried about all the ISPs who feed you ad pages instead of NXDOMAINs.  Yes, someday Google's founders will get replaced by amoral people or something and then they'll turn evil.  But until then, we can trust them.</p><p>Just make sure you use their tools to back up all the Google-hosted data you have.  And be glad that even if they do go evil, they'll only have a few months worth of data.  At that point, I'd stop feeding them more.  I'm already careful about what private data I allow onto the web, because there's never been a way to take it back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't majorly screwed anyone yet , while most of their competitors ( and a great many ISPs ) have.Frankly , I 'm more worried about all the ISPs who feed you ad pages instead of NXDOMAINs .
Yes , someday Google 's founders will get replaced by amoral people or something and then they 'll turn evil .
But until then , we can trust them.Just make sure you use their tools to back up all the Google-hosted data you have .
And be glad that even if they do go evil , they 'll only have a few months worth of data .
At that point , I 'd stop feeding them more .
I 'm already careful about what private data I allow onto the web , because there 's never been a way to take it back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't majorly screwed anyone yet, while most of their competitors (and a great many ISPs) have.Frankly, I'm more worried about all the ISPs who feed you ad pages instead of NXDOMAINs.
Yes, someday Google's founders will get replaced by amoral people or something and then they'll turn evil.
But until then, we can trust them.Just make sure you use their tools to back up all the Google-hosted data you have.
And be glad that even if they do go evil, they'll only have a few months worth of data.
At that point, I'd stop feeding them more.
I'm already careful about what private data I allow onto the web, because there's never been a way to take it back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326400</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1259954040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.</p><p>Right and when google started their business they didnt have a tracking cookie that expires in 2038. Things change. The DNS data has value and once google's shareholders realize this they will begin to mine it.  Heck, if they dont then the executives can be sued for not running the business properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services , and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.Right and when google started their business they didnt have a tracking cookie that expires in 2038 .
Things change .
The DNS data has value and once google 's shareholders realize this they will begin to mine it .
Heck , if they dont then the executives can be sued for not running the business properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.Right and when google started their business they didnt have a tracking cookie that expires in 2038.
Things change.
The DNS data has value and once google's shareholders realize this they will begin to mine it.
Heck, if they dont then the executives can be sued for not running the business properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325036</id>
	<title>yep...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's that time of the day. Google post...go figger...</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's that time of the day .
Google post...go figger.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's that time of the day.
Google post...go figger...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325912</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, sure, give them even more information</title>
	<author>kenboldt</author>
	<datestamp>1259951940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no!  Google might find out that I check hockey scores online, and I posted a picture of myself on Facebook.  EEP!

Seriously, if you have nothing to hide, then there isn't an issue.  If you don't get a job because in your personal time you wanted to look at some boobies, then perhaps you don't want that job anyway, because your boss would be an asshole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Google might find out that I check hockey scores online , and I posted a picture of myself on Facebook .
EEP ! Seriously , if you have nothing to hide , then there is n't an issue .
If you do n't get a job because in your personal time you wanted to look at some boobies , then perhaps you do n't want that job anyway , because your boss would be an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Google might find out that I check hockey scores online, and I posted a picture of myself on Facebook.
EEP!

Seriously, if you have nothing to hide, then there isn't an issue.
If you don't get a job because in your personal time you wanted to look at some boobies, then perhaps you don't want that job anyway, because your boss would be an asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325080</id>
	<title>Beware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BadAnalogyGuy is a scientologist, and convicted sex offender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BadAnalogyGuy is a scientologist , and convicted sex offender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BadAnalogyGuy is a scientologist, and convicted sex offender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259950260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess where your caching DNS server gets its feed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess where your caching DNS server gets its feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess where your caching DNS server gets its feed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30355758</id>
	<title>Re:I don't really get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260213600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is called root servers.</p><p>Seriously man, if your ISP DNS is slow, why the holly fsck would you set them as forwarders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called root servers.Seriously man , if your ISP DNS is slow , why the holly fsck would you set them as forwarders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called root servers.Seriously man, if your ISP DNS is slow, why the holly fsck would you set them as forwarders?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30354782</id>
	<title>Can't believe I have to say this....but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260208860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to be safe and secure and keep your privacy, DON'T USE A NETWORKED COMPUTER!</p><p>Don't you realize what DARPA created the Internet for...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to be safe and secure and keep your privacy , DO N'T USE A NETWORKED COMPUTER ! Do n't you realize what DARPA created the Internet for... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to be safe and secure and keep your privacy, DON'T USE A NETWORKED COMPUTER!Don't you realize what DARPA created the Internet for...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325070</id>
	<title>first lookup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8.8.8.8 is almost as easy to remember as 4.2.2.2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8.8.8.8 is almost as easy to remember as 4.2.2.2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8.8.8.8 is almost as easy to remember as 4.2.2.2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30330016</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1259926200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I hadn't already posted I'd mod that insightful.Seriously, your ISP's have been following dirty underhanded tactics the moment you signed up, by delaying your installation, lacking in support, not offernig you full speeds, and disconnecting you when you approach your full speed. Now, given that they are in it for the money, and ALL of your traffic is going through them - they have every reason to take your information and sell it. You KNOW they have your information because the police can demand that inf</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had n't already posted I 'd mod that insightful.Seriously , your ISP 's have been following dirty underhanded tactics the moment you signed up , by delaying your installation , lacking in support , not offernig you full speeds , and disconnecting you when you approach your full speed .
Now , given that they are in it for the money , and ALL of your traffic is going through them - they have every reason to take your information and sell it .
You KNOW they have your information because the police can demand that inf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I hadn't already posted I'd mod that insightful.Seriously, your ISP's have been following dirty underhanded tactics the moment you signed up, by delaying your installation, lacking in support, not offernig you full speeds, and disconnecting you when you approach your full speed.
Now, given that they are in it for the money, and ALL of your traffic is going through them - they have every reason to take your information and sell it.
You KNOW they have your information because the police can demand that inf
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325666</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1259950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.</p></div><p>Why believe Google?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services , and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.Why believe Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.Why believe Google?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326210</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy for what?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1259953260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.</p></div><p>Google also has a <a href="http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html" title="google.com">Privacy Policy</a> [google.com], but the thing is, it was "Last modified: March 11, 2009" and "Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time."
<br> <br>
The lack of trust that so many people are venting isn't from thin air. The US government is spying on it's own citizens (and everyone else.) Sprint is working hard setting up websites to let local law enforcement to monitor citizens. Also, there are no standards for data privacy, and companies change <i>their own policy</i> whenever they want and change it to whatever they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services , and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.Google also has a Privacy Policy [ google.com ] , but the thing is , it was " Last modified : March 11 , 2009 " and " Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time .
" The lack of trust that so many people are venting is n't from thin air .
The US government is spying on it 's own citizens ( and everyone else .
) Sprint is working hard setting up websites to let local law enforcement to monitor citizens .
Also , there are no standards for data privacy , and companies change their own policy whenever they want and change it to whatever they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their public statements say that they are not linking the requests to other Google services, and that they are discarding ip addresses within a day or two.Google also has a Privacy Policy [google.com], but the thing is, it was "Last modified: March 11, 2009" and "Please note that this Privacy Policy may change from time to time.
"
 
The lack of trust that so many people are venting isn't from thin air.
The US government is spying on it's own citizens (and everyone else.
) Sprint is working hard setting up websites to let local law enforcement to monitor citizens.
Also, there are no standards for data privacy, and companies change their own policy whenever they want and change it to whatever they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325782</id>
	<title>Re:And the worst case scenario?</title>
	<author>louden obscure</author>
	<datestamp>1259951340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>worst case scenario?
i edit resolv.conf back to my ISP's nameservers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>worst case scenario ?
i edit resolv.conf back to my ISP 's nameservers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>worst case scenario?
i edit resolv.conf back to my ISP's nameservers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325114</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30355058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30348166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30331220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30328194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30328770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30341320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30333928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30330352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30354644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30355758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1532258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30332900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30331220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30348166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30354644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30330352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30332900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30327366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30333928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30341320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30328770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30355758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30328194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1532258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30325070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30326524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1532258.30355058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
