mailing list archives
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike () swm pp se>
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there
seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses
are in some way more antithetical to privacy.
Yes, I agree. I know people who choose provider based on the availability
of static addresses, I know very few who avoid static address ISPs because
of this fact.
You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
If the ISP
a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days)
c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a
relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP
While this isn't "privacy", per se, that "making harder" is at least
somewhat useful to a client in reducing the odds that such non-ISP/LEO
parties will be unable to tie their visits, assuming they've controlled
the items they *can* control (cookies, flash cookies, etc).
Imperfect security != no security, *as long as you know where the holes are*.
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274