[throwawaygoog10]

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on DNS or Gmail.

> Now, Google does claim they don't track DNS requests. But consider why that is? Once upon a time they didn't scan Gmail content either, but that was before GMail dominated the webmail space.

You seem to assume that it's a singular organization with a unified agenda, but this really isn't the case. It's the same thing about when folks assume Google looks at your Drive files to recommend ads to you -- it isn't true, there's different motives there.

Drive: we want to sell you storage, your data isn't scanned (except for viruses). Google DNS: speed up DNS, which improves load times, which improves the overall web experience. Photos: Ditto, we want to sell you storage.

Performance is a feature, and most ISP resolvers are junk. Worse, many of those resolvers like to inject their own NXDOMAIN pages. :\

You could argue that Google DNS does positively impact Ads, but only in the respect that faster DNS resolution helps ads load faster too. Overall, I see it as one of those "long term greedy" (my own words) strategies.

As a privacy-conscious Googler myself, I've taken a look at Google DNS to convince myself that it's what it says on the tin. As far as I can tell it is, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. What logging exists is extremely temporary (short-term debugging.)

Re: Gmail, this isn't true either. Sure, there's still processing of your emails (we receive your email, scan it for spam), but it isn't used for Gmail ads. The public perception of this was so bad and the incremental improvement in ad quality so low, that now ads just use your general ad profile. No email scanning involved.

> Software stacks, configuration policies, etc will have all evolved to disfavor niche use cases and favor Google, Cloudflare, etc.

This is a different matter entirely, but this isn't _always_ a bad thing. I'm thinking of TCP here, which has almost entirely been ossified by middleboxes. Same for TLS -- TLS development has been hamstrung by these same kinds of middleboxes and "protocol accelerators." This kind of incredible technology position has allowed for the acceleration of HTTP/2 and the development of QUIC (and therefore HTTP/3). Overall, Google has been incredibly open with the development of these and worked to include everyone. I'm sure it's not always that way. Can you bring up some examples where "niche use-cases" have been locked out by Google-driven software stacks and configuration policies?

[the_narrator]

I can't imagine using Google services if one is remotely privacy conscious. Just from your own defense:

Drive: > your data isn't scanned (except for...

Google DNS: > What logging exists is extremely temporary...

Gmail: > we receive your email, scan it for ....

[mbreese]

With that logic, how could anyone remotely privacy conscious use any service on the Internet?

There’s a lot to worry about w.r.t. privacy online. Virus scanning, spam filtering, and debug logging aren’t high on my worry-list.

[tdurden]

I think the point is not necessarily what they are scanning now, but what they might scanning in the future for other purposes.

[myrandomcomment]

I am having a hard time with the do not read email part here. Let me tell you why.

1. I do not use google for DNS 2. I do not use chrome. I use firefox with ad blocking 3. I only browse in private browsing mode 99% of the time. 4. I have a script that updates a block list of 10s of 1000s IPs for ad and tracking blocking, etc into my host file.

So I order a box of cigars. Confirmation is to a gmail account. Next day I get stop smoking ads in YouTube. Never seen them before then.

So...

[dnh44]

There’s a difference between saying we don’t scan the emails and saying we don’t track the metadata either. So if you bought from an online tobacconist rather than amazon they wouldn’t need to scan the contents.

[myrandomcomment]

What is the metadata you are looking at? The email was from [e-mail]? Is the email address and subject metadata? If so you are being disingenuous about not reading emails. The idea of google saying we do not read your emails, will be understood by the masses to mean we do not read you emails, not hey we take careful note of the sender and any marks on the envelope but we do not open it. It is free email, got it, but seems a bit shady in the presentation of your do’s and don’ts.

[rsync]

"Google DNS: speed up DNS, which improves load times, which improves the overall web experience."

Oh, just stop.

It's even more disappointing to consider that you believe this to be true.

[jusssi]

As a counter-anecdote to your disbelief, I've enjoyed internet on an ISP whose DNS servers were very slow. Slow enough for me to spend the effort to find out what's the holdup between enter key and first paint. DNS responses were about 350ms, compared to 8.8.8.8 sub-20ms.

Edit: I should add that the slowness wasn't a peak hour thing, it was consistent, all day, for several months.

Switching made my subjective experience better.

[throwawaygoog10]

What exactly is it that you believe is the truth then?