[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: My InternetWeek op-ed column on IPv6 privacy issues
- To: Bill Frezza <frezza@alum.MIT.EDU>, firstname.lastname@example.org, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: Re: My InternetWeek op-ed column on IPv6 privacy issues
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:23:43 +0100
- CC: IFWP Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Esther (The clueless) Dyson" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bill and all,
Thank you for forwarding this. It helps to underscore the problems
that will eventually become significant with respect to Privacy problems
with IPv6. We [INEG Inc.] have been concerned with this problem
with IPv6 for some time and have passed this concern on to the IETF
as well as ICANN as ICANN seems to have a strong belief that
IPv6 is the future. We respectfully are not in complete agreement
for the privacy concerns amongst others associated with
IPv6 and have decidedly moved towards a private effort towards
IPv8 as a result. That effort in in deployment as I type this response.
Bill Frezza wrote:
> Gentle readers,
> Thank you for your feedback on my recent column "Where's All The Outrage
> About The IPv6 Privacy Threat"
> Normally I respond to every letter I receive, but the volume of mail on
> this one broke all records so I'm afraid I have to send out a group note.
> (It seems that peeved IETF geeks are even more vociferous than peeved
> Mac-heads. :)
> Let me, in particular, address some of the comments from the folks who
> insist that there is no privacy problem with IPv6 or that the problem is
> identical with IPv4 or that the problem has already been solved by the IETF
> or that the use of EUI-64 addressing is optional and not mandatory,
> therefore there's no problem. (I do not intend to reply to the folks who
> just plain don't care about privacy as this is a philosophical issue beyond
> the scope of this note. As for readers who don't like my inflammatory
> writing style, feel free not to read my column. I write op-eds, not news
> 1) Yes, IPv4 has its own privacy problems. In fact, any time one uses a
> static or long-lived IP address, the possibility exists for abusive
> systematic surveillance. The fact that a central registry of addresses does
> or does not exist has no bearing on the potential threat as such a data
> base can be built over time, particularly for individuals or groups that
> have been specifically targeted. In addition, countries like China or
> Singapore could easily require registration. Why give them the tools in the
> first place?
> 2) Yes, dynamic assignment of IP addresses for dial-up users as well as
> Network Address Translation (NAT) helps mitigate (though does not
> eliminate) the privacy problem. As we move towards an "always connected"
> Internet, with more and more users communicating via Cable Modems or DSL,
> more IP addresses will become long lived, hence the problem will get worse.
> 3) It's too late to change IPv4 while it is not too late to change IPv6. My
> column was intended as a call to action to get the IETF off it's duff. A
> fault in my column is that I did not specifically describe proposals being
> circulated to address the issue, one of which is attached below. Mea culpa,
> and my apologies to the good guys for ignoring their efforts. May the force
> be with you.
> 4) Be that as it may, draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-00.txt is just a
> proposal. It has not been and may not be adopted. Absent further action, it
> will go away. If it is adopted, it may or may not be implemented by major
> vendors, especially if the final standard offers a Chinese menu of choices.
> 5) Note that the proposal ACKNOWLEDGES THE PROBLEM. In addition it points
> out that
> > The desires of protecting individual privacy vs. the desire to
> > effectively maintain and debug a network can conflict with each
> > other.
> The same can be said across the board for many aspects of law enforcement
> in a society that values liberty. Just think how much safer the streets
> would be if we all walked around with electronic radio ID collars
> registering our movements. Fortunately, we have chosen not to construct
> such a society (although if you follow the development of the CALEA laws,
> this is not for want of the FBI trying).
> 6) The solutions proposed in draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-00.txt
> cause a a major problem with one of the other goals of IPv6
> > The IPv6 addressing architecture goes to great lengths to ensure that
> > interface identifiers are globally unique. During the IPng
> > discussions of the GSE proposal [GSE], it was felt that keeping
> > interface identifiers globally unique in practice might prove useful
> > to future transport protocols. Usage of the algorithms in this
> > document would eliminate that future flexibility.
> The random assignment algorithms look very promising. I hope they are
> adopted, but no one knows yet how this conflict is going to be resolved.
> 7) At the end of the day, what matters to the average netizen is not the
> menu of possible alternatives described in IETF standards, but the actual
> default implementation in popular products, e.g. Windows. Just because an
> educated and motivated geek can get into the plumbing of his machine and
> find a way to solve his own privacy problem doesn't mean the problem has
> been solved for the bulk of average users. If the folks at Microsoft don't
> properly address this in their future products, I can positively,
> absolutely guarantee that it will blow up in their face.
> 8) Readers who are interested in registering their concerns should contact
> the CDT at www.CDT.org. I got a very nice note from them indicating that
> they are now wading into the issue. One hopes that EPIC and the EFF will
> follow suit.
> Bill Frezza
> PS Special thanks to Scott Bradner and Mike O'Dell for helping me
> understand some of the technical nuances of this issue that I had
> previously misunderstood. Notwithstanding, I stand by my column and hope
> all you geeks do something about it. The opinions above are my own.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208