Quad9 (DNS Resolver) to Exit France
文章洞見
原文內容目前無法安全取得，因此未產生文章摘要。
討論洞見
尚無可用的討論摘要。
代表性留言
While I agree in spirit, this also makes the resolver away from being able to claim they're just a neutral service which just delivers existing records without being opinionated
WhyNotHugo · HN #50197780（在新分頁開啟）
The person behind this legal warfare is the beIN Sports chairman, Nasser Al-Khelaifi. He is also president of Paris Saint-Germain and chairman of Qatar Sports Investment.He is, obviously, not French.His self-claimed annual income was about $15–25 million, and his personal wealth was about $70–100 million.
miohtama · HN #50199318（在新分頁開啟）
Quad9 is getting picked on because they do not have a large financial backing. Not because it makes any logical sense. France is shooting themselves in the foot.
artooro · HN #50196543（在新分頁開啟）
France is not doing anything. This is BIG SOCCER suing the hell of everyone.
prmoustache · HN #50199980（在新分頁開啟）
Maybe i missed it in the post, but how are they going to implement it? They mentioned geoIP is insufficient for complying with the block, so if they dont have a way to block only these domains for users in France, how will they block all requests for users in France?To be clear I dont think they should comply with the block, but i didn't grasp how they're going to block everything if they dont have a way to only block some things.
0x0000000 · HN #50196994（在新分頁開啟）
They're removing all presence they have in France, their servers mostly.They want to be out of reach of French courts basically.
eloisant · HN #50197269（在新分頁開啟）
Reply in separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50200111
johnhtodd · HN #50200545（在新分頁開啟）
(context: I'm the CTO of Quad9 and am one of the people dealing with the lawyers)There is an understandable focus on "how are you going to block French users" when we have also claimed that geoIP blocking is insufficient for selectively denying resolution for certain names - we understand this conflict, but we think it is energy spent in the wrong place.It is probable that we will use geoIP filters to block French users from our services after November 24. We could apply this same geoIP filter list now to selectively block French users from reaching the sites that we've been told to make unavailable. But this would corrupt our core premise, which is that the DNS is not the right place for this to happen, and if we comply within France to meet the requirement then we accept the worst eventual outcome for users and we still do not have legally perfect coverage. We wish to first remain consistent with our core mission, and secondarily we must remain as close to compliance as we can to the legal constraints put upon us. By accepting the demands for blocking, we would admit that such demands are permissible within our mission - that we will act on behalf of companies (or others) to create ineffective and mis-directed regimes of content constraint.We would be admitting that we think this solves the problem - it does not. We would be admitting that we will do this for an ever-increasing number of names - we will not. We would be permitting these methods to be applied for more areas of filtering such as moral, religious, social, or political reasons - we must not.So we accept that there is the possibility that we will have errors in our blockade, but in this case (blocking French users) we maintain consistency with our stated mission of integrity of the DNS. We would rather there be a clear distinction made for users of our services: you get the DNS as you (the user) expects, or if Quad9 is forced to pollute the service with unexpected and arbitrary number of fragmentation demands, then we will not offer the services at all.The underlying issue is not ONLY that geoIP blocking is ineffective, but that the entire premise of any of these demands is inappropriately applied to DNS recursive resolution providers. We would hope that this discussion continues to be on the most fundamental of the disagreement we have with the outcome in this court case, not on the details of the technical implementation which have yet to be entirely decided and which can be tuned over time.
johnhtodd · HN #50200111（在新分頁開啟）
If you have no presence in France do you need to care about the ruling or the fines?
NetMageSCW · HN #50202351（在新分頁開啟）
Keep up the good fight! I'm happy that you take a stand for your beliefs and try to do what's best for all of us.
monneyboi · HN #50200263（在新分頁開啟）
"The plaintiff (Sony Music Entertainment GmbH) then used a VPN to access the blocked content from Germany in circumvention of the geoIP blocking. The court agreed with Sony in their assertions of noncompliance, and we were fined for contempt of court."Imagine doing everything possible to stop something. They then circumvent your protections with yet another service, and you get fined.I wish I could even suggest what someone could do against these trolls.This is like saying "we put a lock requested by court and where found guilty because plantif hacked us after"
nadermx · HN #50196525（在新分頁開啟）
The article rightfully mentions the Sony case, but the article is actually mainly about another company:> beIN, a Qatari company with offices in France, previously sought to force Quad9 to block resolution for a set of domain names they assert are participating in copyright infringement of its audiovisual rights on sports event broadcasts.This seems to be the relevant wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeIN_Channels_Network
vaylian · HN #50198910（在新分頁開啟）
> Imagine doing everything possible to stop something. They then circumvent your protections with yet another service, and you get fined.Isnt this what gets all tech companies into trouble all the time. Something objectionable happens (ChatGPT helping someone bulid a bomb for instance) and we go like "Do better".
bitpush · HN #50196772（在新分頁開啟）
Seems they're following Cisco similar move 2y ago of exiting the market> Canal+ has been busy getting web-blocking injunctions in France against sports piracy sites which stream sporting events for which it has the exclusive broadcast rights within the French market. It previously targeted DNS resolvers operated by Google, Cloudflare and Cisco.> All three unsuccessfully opposed the web-blocking orders. Google and Cloudflare, therefore, have been forced to instigate them. However, Cisco just pulled its OpenDNS service out of the French market entirely.(Per https://completemusicupdate.com/quad9-vows-to-fight-absurd-w..., https://completemusicupdate.com/opendns-pulls-plug-on-france...)
euio757 · HN #50197803（在新分頁開啟）
Punishing the DNS resolver is weird. Would you punish the phone book company for having the number of a criminal listed?
babarock · HN #50196497（在新分頁開啟）
Same reason copyright abusers threaten people that help remove the DRM from their Amazon-bought e-book so it can be read on their non-Amazon bought e-reader with a $250,000 fine and five years in prison for circumventing a digital lock using DMCA, because it's what the legal API allows them to achieve their end goal.It's not about if it makes sense from a moral point of view.
teroshan · HN #50196754（在新分頁開啟）
The most likely answer is that they didn't think about it or didn't understand or didn't care. But on the off chance they did, perhaps they thought the DNS provider would enforce the ruling worldwide.
JoshTriplett · HN #50197025（在新分頁開啟）
DNS resolvers getting sued should stop resolving domains/properties of the companies suing them too when they are forced to take these kinds of actions/steps off the back of a legal decision like this.
JokerDan · HN #50196742（在新分頁開啟）
Keep resolving, but instead of resolving multiple A records, resolve just one. Fuck that one server in particular.Delay updates by 1 week.Answer randomly with the up-to-date or the out-of-date records.
drdexebtjl · HN #50196930（在新分頁開啟）
I mentioned not too long ago that Mullvad was handing its resolver users over to Quad9. Sadly, I didn’t realize how accurate my concerns would be. Quad9 is a good operator, they actually fought Sony in a German court instead of quietly complying. Yet, they were still ordered to block the content. That’s the core problem. A blocking order is only as damaging as the resolver it impacts. Every time an operator shuts down and redirects its users to Quad9, it pools more users into one place. This makes the next blocking order even more valuable and effective for whoever files it. And now we're seeing Quad9 backing out of a market.
DemiGuru · HN #50196828（在新分頁開啟）
> Yet, they were still ordered to block the content.At first yes, but ultimately the blocking order was undone by a higher German court in December 2023.
skrause · HN #50198272（在新分頁開啟）
HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49568579
alberth · HN #50197548（在新分頁開啟）
Reminds me of Cloudflare going down every time there was a football game in Spain as the ISPs blocked all the "bad" ips, which ironically also served government websites.
corvad · HN #50198764（在新分頁開啟）
It’s still happening every time there is football, at least they now seem to lift the block when the games end, when this started sometimes they took 12 hours after the game ended.
ErneX · HN #50199413（在新分頁開啟）
I don't see the relation and want to laugh with you guys. ISPs blocked cloudflare during football matches? Or the government websites directly? why?
efilife · HN #50202118（在新分頁開啟）
Whenever people talk about why you should host in the EU, this is just the most recent example for why should shouldn't.
this_user · HN #50197416（在新分頁開啟）
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-ever...
fmbb · HN #50201106（在新分頁開啟）
Also, hosting location is kind of a deception for real ways to protect data, like E2EE, which work no matter the country.
privacyishuman · HN #50198945（在新分頁開啟）
> The French courts have fundamentally misunderstood the working of the internet and the role of the domain name systemI think thus is the real problem. And you can easily replace France with Germany or US here.
Helmut10001 · HN #50198236（在新分頁開啟）
The US doesn't compel ISPs to block websites. The FBI will occasionally seize a domain after a court order, but that's it.This is a pretty uniquely EU thing.
petcat · HN #50198257（在新分頁開啟）
At least in the US, it’s not a matter of "understanding". It’s a matter of "you are paid to misunderstand".The law is vast and subject to various levels of interpretation. If there’s anything I have learned is that the court is just a rich persons weapon to "peacefully" resolve problems. In this modern capitalistic, greedy shithole we have dug ourselves into. Money and resources talks.
xyst · HN #50199828（在新分頁開啟）
Sports broadcasters truly are the bane of society. May they get DDoS'd during important matches until they're bankrupt.
jeroenhd · HN #50197653（在新分頁開啟）
Sports is the only thing left of value in broadcasting. I can totally understand why they're gonna fight tooth and nail to protect it.
intrasight · HN #50197745（在新分頁開啟）
Time to boycott Sony, they deserve no money from anyone, and I meant anyone.They're just f*ing with people without getting anyone good stuff.Suppose they're doing this for copyright, it's not like the pirates would be stopped by a mere DNS block rule set anyway.
_imnothere · HN #50196915（在新分頁開啟）
> Time to boycott Sony, they deserve no money from anyone, and I meant anyone.Because when they installed rootkits on user's machines wasn't that time?Because when they removed content users purchased from their machines wasn't that time?Because when they spy on what users watch on their TVs in the privacy of their home wasn't that time?Sony is like a tree. The best time to boycott Sony was decades ago. The second best time is today.
antiframe · HN #50197224（在新分頁開啟）
Why are so many comments talking about Sony? The case was brought by beIN Sports.
Narishma · HN #50199091（在新分頁開啟）
If you want to support Quad9 in their dealing with this, you can donate to the cause here: https://quad9.net/donate/Quad9 is a Swiss-based not-for-profit organization whose operational budget comes entirely from sponsorships and donations.
monneyboi · HN #50200283（在新分頁開啟）
I am curious if a large number of people stood up their own DoH/DoT servers:- Would France go after each one, even if they were not operating servers physically in France? It only takes a few minutes to configure Unbound+LetsEncrypt to accept DoH+DoT internet traffic. A few minutes longer to compile support for DoQ.- Could they realistically expect individual operators of small DoH/DoT/DoQ open servers to block domains at their behest?
Bender · HN #50197181（在新分頁開啟）
DNS needs a way to say “unavailable for legal reasons” so your system just picks a different resolver or resolves recursively.
drdexebtjl · HN #50198567（在新分頁開啟）
How have our democracies not abolished copyright law yet? These laws only serve the 1%. I have no idea why we still put up with them.
nish__ · HN #50196855（在新分頁開啟）
There was a recent attempt to substantially reform copyright in the EU - it was called "Stop Killing Games". It gathered over one million signatures, forcing the EU parliament to consider it. Their response was "this would require us to change copyright law, and we can't do that, sorry."The USA strong-arms copyright law into every single trade deal. I think it was Chile who tried to strike DMCA 1201 out of some trade deal with the US about food staples, but were swiftly informed by the US that if they didn't make DMCA 1201 into Chilean domestic law, the US would completely cut off their trade. This stuff is serious business for the US and no other country is in the geopolitical position right now to question it.Fortunately since the US is mid-collapse that last point may change soon.https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/28/disenshittification-natio...
immibis2 · HN #50199718（在新分頁開啟）
FOSS depends on copyright laws. Oldest versions of Linux and UNIX are more than 20 years old, so early versions of both would be hypothetically now in public domain in the absence of Disney-lobbied maximalist versions of copyright laws, or in the total absence of one.
numpad0 · HN #50197191（在新分頁開啟）
I’ll bite. I have written a recursive DNS resolver. It’s buggy, mind you, it doesn’t handle improperly configured domains bug-for-bug the way BIND9 does, it doesn’t support IPv6 for resolving records (it can still resolve AAAA records, mind you), but it’s about 80 kilobytes in size, runs nicely on 32-bit systems, and does full DNS resolution starting from the root servers.Does the fact I have written this resolver make me liable should it not block the domains they listed which may contain copyright infringing content? Am I now required to add these domains, and make them part of a mandatory block list? Will I still be held liable if people can still access these allegedly copyright infringing domains by modifying the source to my program?Keep in mind that when Quad9 had a similar lawsuit in Germany, they blocked queries from German IPs, but the idiots said Quad9 was still liable because people could use VPNs in Germany to bypass their geoIP blocking.Quad9 being forced to block these domains will achieve nothing. Will these copyright enforcers now go after Google for 8.8.8.8? Cloudflare for 1.1.1.1? Level3 for 4.2.2.1? Will they go after ISC for BIND? NLnet Labs for Unbound? CZ.NIC for KnotDNS? Me for MaraDNS? Even if they enjoin me from making a recursive resolver which can resolve these domains, that won’t stop anyone and everyone from forking my code (see also: Twitter trying to take down Nitter).
strenholme · HN #50200095（在新分頁開啟）
> Does the fact I have written this resolver make me liable should it not block the domains they listed which may contain copyright infringing content?I use unbound and have a similar question. Shouldn't we just encourage everyone to run their own resolvers (it's turnkey for the most part!)? Will Sony/beIn start going after the root servers and enforce a global block?
koyote · HN #50201053（在新分頁開啟）
>Will these copyright enforcers now go after Google for 8.8.8.8? Cloudflare for 1.1.1.1?they already have.
bragr · HN #50200193（在新分頁開啟）
France also regulates encryption in applications. Some percentage of apps are not available in France, because apps don't comply with the rules imposed by bureaucrats or more often developers find procedures cumbersome or unfamiliar
aborsy · HN #50199327（在新分頁開啟）
Macron's party has also been trying to require encryption backdoors for years, and are major supporters of Chat Control.
EmbarrassedHelp · HN #50200071（在新分頁開啟）
Can you tell more? Which apps?
paulgdp · HN #50199353（在新分頁開啟）
The great wall of Orleans... Living abroad, I've been embarrassed by my french passport for a number of years. Our reputation sucks, for a reason.
weddpros · HN #50202667（在新分頁開啟）
Noob question: Isn't there like a panel of existing case law or amicus-briefs that would speak to the logical and historical stupidity of arguments by the plaintiffs? I mean this is like blaming airbus for hijackings.
ghm2199 · HN #50201343（在新分頁開啟）
We've all seen this sort of thing many times before, but I still don't understand how it works.I transmit a radio signal in Dover that can be picked up by radios in Calais, the message it carries happens to be illegal in France ("Brittany is still part of the UK", say). Could I be taken to court in France? I'm guessing no.
ghusto · HN #50200142（在新分頁開啟）
I'm super confused as to what it means to withdraw for French users if geoIP doesn't work.So remove 9.9.9.9 BGP announcements? Unless France wants to build a great firewall... a Ligne Maginot du DNS, I don't see how this is enforceable. The internet is not Minitel...
chaboud · HN #50200104（在新分頁開啟）
Crazy. A company that actually exits the market they threatened to leave. Meta and Twitter should take note.
trentor · HN #50196775（在新分頁開啟）
Europe needs to strengthen its free speech protections. It turns out, even though the US founders had no idea what DNS was, they still created the right framework to protect it.
declan_roberts · HN #50196804（在新分頁開啟）
As long as you don’t say Artificial Intelligence instead of Super Intelligence, you’re all good.
AndroTux · HN #50197085（在新分頁開啟）
US just pushes the enforcement mechanisms to private companies not so hamstrung by legalese. E.g. try and torrent all you want. After all, all you are really doing observably is connecting to various IPs, essentially no different than browsing websites. But you might get a letter in the mail not from the government, but from the ISP threatening legal action against you, solely because their systems saw your IP connected to another.
asdff · HN #50200039（在新分頁開啟）
The internet is a distributed system, they said.
dev_l1x_be · HN #50199484（在新分頁開啟）
> The plaintiff (Sony Music Entertainment GmbH) then used a VPN to access the blocked content from Germany in circumvention of the geoIP blocking. The court agreed with Sony in their assertions of noncompliance, and we were fined for contempt of court.I knew courts were dumb, but didn't think they were this dumb."The neighbour's dog bit me, so they put up a fence. I climbed over it and got bitten again. The fence doesn't count."
whh · HN #50197705（在新分頁開啟）
Genuinely baffled by the incompetence (or ill-intent, corruption?) demonstrated by our courts, did they do it at behest of Qatar ? Another stain on our country's reputation but they don't care.
Qiu_Zhanxuan · HN #50199678（在新分頁開啟）
> demonstrated by our courts, did they do it at behest of QatarHonestly, this is a possibility.beIN, like any Qatar based company, is majority owned by the state. Qatar is infamously rich in oil with the state able to subsidize luxury lifestyles for citizens it deems worthy.France needs oil, like any other country. So if a journalist could follow the money. Could probably find where the pressure was applied within the government.The rich using archaic copyright laws to get their way has been modus operandi for quite awhile. Seen this applied both in USA and abroad.
xyst · HN #50199799（在新分頁開啟）
Why does it matter that it’s a recursive resolver? They mention this a lot but it seems like the decision would just as much apply to a non-recursive resolver.I didn’t attempt find the ruling; perhaps the lawsuit was written in an odd way.
gumby · HN #50196603（在新分頁開啟）
It is difficult to envision a "non-recursive DNS resolver" in public service. Recursion is the usual and customary way that DNS names are resolved by the leaf servers, because they are not authoritative for much of anything.The most common configuration for non-recursive DNS servers is with forwarders. The DNS server accepts queries and simply forwards all of them upstream to another resolver, which... makes its own recursive queries.It is simply not feasible to avoid having recursive resolvers in the chain of lookups. That's how things work with DNS.
ButlerianJihad · HN #50196649（在新分頁開啟）
Similar misunderstandings have led to Cloudflare blockages during soccer matches in Spain.
illusive4080 · HN #50201988（在新分頁開啟）
Seems unlikely to resolve their legal issues, as the French lawyers will use the same tactic as the German ones, using a VPN to access the services from France to justify continuing their lawsuits. Perhaps they should consider relocating out of Europe.
modeless · HN #50198275（在新分頁開啟）
> The plaintiff (Sony Music Entertainment GmbH) then used a VPN to access the blocked content from Germany in circumvention of the geoIP blocking. The court agreed with Sony in their assertions of noncompliance, and we were fined for contempt of court.This is some fucked up level of incompetency.That’s why Justice can be abused by whoever got the most money, if it was competent they wouldn’t waste much time on these ridiculous claims.
aucisson_masque · HN #50201524（在新分頁開啟）
Welp, I've been using quad9 and I'm French, does anyone have an alternative I can switch to?
Jepacor · HN #50197080（在新分頁開啟）
I recommend Norway, they have lovely fjords.
capitol_ · HN #50197271（在新分頁開啟）
You keep using it. They're not going to block your IP but response times may drop since they won't have any servers in France.
driverdan · HN #50199037（在新分頁開啟）
I wonder what pressure Qatar put on France to force this through?BeIn is owned by the Qatari state, who just so happen to own Paris St Germain.Their owners Yousef Al-Obaidly and Nasser Al-Khelaifi (for both the network and the club) are outspoken about piracy and 'the damage it causes football and creative industries'.They've also been in and out of court a fair bit on corruption charges, and seems they've paid their way out of trouble through fines. Seems just last month a new case opened:https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260920-psg-president...Nation state meddling, dodgy characters, corruption and greed is more of a threat to football than a DNS resolver, tbh.
gaiagraphia · HN #50198274（在新分頁開啟）
I wonder why Anonymous seems to be like a thing of the past these days ... There's so many of these fuckers going scot free these days. If anyone know any Anonymous-style movement going after these kind of people, I'm interested to know more.
barkut · HN #50201693（在新分頁開啟）
Why stopping serving french IPs though? Remove your legal presence in France, sure. But block IP ranges from reaching your servers.. just why?
egorfine · HN #50197836（在新分頁開啟）
French law does not care if the servers are in France or anywhere else - just that the users are in France. This sounds unexpected, but that is the law. There is a treaty called the "Lugano Convention" that allows civil lawsuits to be extended across borders of the member nations in events like this - France and Switzerland (where Quad9 is based) are signatories on that convention, so effectively French law can apply in Switzerland on matters involving internet activity. It is much more nuanced than that, so forgive this short summary, but removing servers from France is not sufficient.
johnhtodd · HN #50200795（在新分頁開啟）
Most likely, so they have legal standing to say "We don't operate in your country or serve your citizens, your laws do not apply". Also, punishment for a stupid ruling.
rpdillon · HN #50197923（在新分頁開啟）
"There are more important reasons geoIP blocking will not work."Okay, now waiting to see how they will technically block those french users from the 24th nov onward...
Felger · HN #50196650（在新分頁開啟）
They don't have to. Despite Europe's best efforts, national laws are not enforceable outside the borders without lots of cooperation, and tech regulation is not an area where people are collaborating.
burnte · HN #50196938（在新分頁開啟）
Am I the only one who find it disturbing that a privacy focused service publishes a detailed report of which institutions is accessing their service, just to make a point?They say they don't have data about individual IP addresses, and their report is follows their privacy policy. Yes, right, but think about it as a matter of principle. Normally, a privacy focused service shouldn't collect any data, but for technical or legal reasons, sometimes, they have to. They may need to know how many queries they have and from which zones to properly dimension their infrastructure for instance, so it is normal for them to have these logs, but publishing them in a blog post just to make a point feels like they are ready to use collected data beyond their intended purpose if it serves their interests.Legally, it is fine, and is is unlikely to hurt anyone, but on principle, that's a red flag.
GuB-42 · HN #50200339（在新分頁開啟）
> Am I the only one who find it disturbing that a privacy focused service publishes a detailed report of which institutions is accessing their serviceI don't find it disturbing at all, and it's perfectly in line with what you would expect a privacy focused service to do: name and shame those that are attacking privacy.
johnisom2001 · HN #50200716（在新分頁開啟）
the lawyers are ruining the internet
bpbp-mango · HN #50201073（在新分頁開啟）
Sometimes I wonder if the days of a global internet are drawing to a close.
9cb14c1ec0 · HN #50198011（在新分頁開啟）