Starting November 24, Quad9 will no longer be able to offer its free cyberprotection service to users located in France.

The French courts yesterday handed down an unfavorable ruling against Quad9 in a major case that undermines the transparency and stability of the internet. This decision in favor of beIN forces Quad9 to block the recursive DNS resolution for a number of domain names for users located in France.

The good news is the court significantly reduced the financial penalty, from €580,000 to €1,000 per day. However, for Quad9, this has never been just a financial issue: it is a matter of principle.

We cannot comply with this ruling over the long term while remaining faithful to our mission to protect your privacy, defend you against cyber threats, and preserve the integrity of the internet. For us, recursive DNS resolution is a neutral and passive service. We categorically refuse to alter or lie to you about the DNS responses you receive in a way that opposes your expectations.

This ruling forces an untenable position upon us. Compliance is technically unfeasible, and implementation directly contradicts our mandate to serve the public. As a result, we have made the difficult decision to withdraw Quad9 services from France as of Tuesday, November 24. We deeply regret that French internet users will be left without an alternative that can adequately protect their cybersecurity while remaining compliant with European privacy law.

So tired of the copyright excuse for trying to break the internet. Go after the offenders, not the basic functionality of the internet as an open ecosystem. Pisses me off every time a court fucks up this badly.

What the fuuuck!

fuck ... privacy is that fragile, huh ?

The country that kinda still runs west africa and anywhere using 'francs' as a colony has some shit to hide.

It's not about copyright, it's about control and invading user privacy. If it was ever about copyright then AI companies would have been shutdown before they even got started.

This ruling forces an untenable position upon us. Compliance is technically unfeasible,

...so they're doing the technically infeasible thing because its technically infeasible? (For context I read a prior article where they were saying the technically infeasible part would be reliably geolocating users because IPs are spoofable with VPNs and similar tech)

And so begins continues the technical carrying out of the geopolitization of the internet.

There's a big difference between doing it well enough to be able to claim you don't intentionally do business in a country and doing it well enough to keep your company out of any further lawsuits for not complying with their requirements well enough.