NYT Piece on Open DNS and David Ulevitch

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/business/media/09startup.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Josh sends this link to a piece on David Ulevitch and OpenDNS (thanks Josh bro)

Quote: "OpenDNS service operates only with a user’s consent. “A big part of what makes it O.K. is that it's opt-in all the way to the individual user,”... Instead, he has grander ambitions for helping Web users navigate the Web, though he is leaving those ideas opaque.“

Opt-in huh?  So was Gator..  Depends if your users know exactly what they're opting-in to and how far you go in shaping their experience using the permission you were granted. Not trying to rain on David's parade and I'm not as worried about a decent guy like him shaping technology like this toward the dark-side. I am worried about what would happen if a company like Gator offered him a big pile of money and the culture shifted in a darker more unseemly way.  As a rule, I am firmly against helper applications and downloads like this because of that opaqueness.

Also in Valley Wag:

http://valleywag.com/tech/feuds/the-domainers-worst-enemy-276297.php

Quote: "By redirecting mistyped Web addresses to the correct site, Ulevitch makes life easier for Web surfers -- and impossible for domainers. "

Unless of course those domainers are just website owners with lots of correctly spelled generic sites people "want to get to" and the OpenDNS helper (under new management) degenerates into malware that alters user intent. I will take the 30 year old authoritative DNS standard over some third-party's promise not to do bad things; ten times out of ten.

Comments

[anon]

The amount of effort required to properly configure opendns is way beyond just accidentally clicking something. You have to really know what you are doing in order to set this up.

ISPs are all starting to do the same thing as opendns (monetizing type in errors) and force it on users whether they like it or not. At least with this you can opt-out.

However, the amount of money that could be made if they were more "aggressive" is phenomenal and could prove too much of a money maker for their backers and investors to ignore.

Here are the potential abuses (or aggresive tactics) that could occur with a service like this:

1. block ads and parked pages at the DNS level in favor of your own page with ads

2. sell the search results, or simply buy up all the domains that are popular and not registered based on openDNS search results

I am somewhat leery of OpenDNS's attitude that they are some sort of DNS charity. That is just the impression I get when reading their blog maybe I am wrong. They are making tons of money on this, yet expect techies and open source pundits to freely advertise their service.

If they want me (or any users) to advertise this, set it up on my parents and friends computers, etc. then I want a rev share of their Yahoo PPC revenue.

Needless to say, I am an open DNS user at home and find that it was an improvement over my Cablevision ISP DNS. For the outstanding recursive DNS service alone I am willing to pay the price of their error pages in my browser.

[AhmedF]

No innocent until proven guilty?

Gator may have been opt-in, but what you were opting into was very opaque. Most users had no clue data was being sent back, or that it was tracking your behavior and popping up ads.

I use OpenDNS, and am a big fan. My current ISP (Timewarner) has the crappiest DNS, and since using OpenDNS I don't have to worry about a site timing out even if it is up.

Anyhoo - totally different imo. Gator was an app that had total access to your system - OpenDNS only controls your domain name lookups.

***FS*** ""OpenDNS only controls your domain name lookups."" Think of a what one can do with navigation if you have a dark-heart and bought this platform of what amount to countless browser installations. It monkeys with authoritative DNS.. murky.

[David Ulevitch]

Frank, you are the last person I'd expect to be spreading the fear card of "well one day they could become bad." I considered you more visionary and forward-thinking than that. Come on, you know better, and you can do better.

You know who else can become bad one day? Everyone and Anything. What's your point? Keep your eyes open, full speed ahead and use your wits. That's why you got 'em.

***FS*** David, you put me in a tough spot because I like you and think you're an innovative, decent guy.. but this is one of those tools that has the potential to get missused far too easily.. it monkeys with an authoratative standard that's been around for decades.. and money has a funny way of clouding judgement. In the final analysis it simply replaces one form of advertising with another form of advertising. It has potential to split the root in the browser and it does so in a way I view as murky .. Navigation is not search. I wouldn't be an honest guy if I said 'this is great' because i like you.. and yes, I'd feel this way if I didn't own any domains.. really. ;)

[Javier Marti]

Domainer or not domainer, I agree with Frank on his concerns...but I look at it from another point of view.
In a time where in so many places people are losing fast their civil liberties, who would ultimately benefit from re-directing certain queries at their will? (as it is happening already in China, with Google's consent) Who has the ultimate power and may be tempted to use that power, even more than businesses? Governments.
I am not too keen on ANYTHING that restricts an individual to do what he pleases with his time and his property, provided that it doesn't harm others.
One valid concern is that domainers may lose money. I understand that. But a bigger one is that people may lose access to websites because "the system knows better what I want". (just that thought sends chills down my spine. Make no mistake, this is Pandora's box guys)
Google had great intentions to make the world a better place when they first started. Can we say the same about them now? Do they still have the same priorities?
Same thing with this company and this service. If we create systems to stear people away from their rightful choices, we may lose, as a people, much more than just money.
If we don't oppose this kind of systems from the start, it may be too late when we realize their potential to limit our freedoms. Do we want that? when do we say "Enough. Thank you Google, thank you OpenDNS...now let me go where I want in my browsing and give my time, money and attention to whomever I want"
Call me paranoid if you wish...but when something/someone assumes that intelligent adults cannot make the right choices in life, society as a whole is not going in the right direction.
Why not working on tools and services that ultimately will educate us and inform us, increase our choices...make us better people? Why should we sacrifice our liberties for the sake of a corporation making a few more million a year on top of their billions? When is enough and we start to help other people with our money instead of trying to control them and make more money out of them at the same time? Why do we have to be constantly watched with cameras, followed and led to make sure that we make the "right choices" consume the "right services", watch the "right media" and browse the "right websites"? "Right"...for whom?

Regards,

Javier Marti
Trendirama.com

***FS*** Well said Javier. I view it as a small battle in the broader war of the Free Internet vs a Controlled Intranet. Long-live the Free Internet.. warts and all ;)