Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
-------- matt.addison@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: --------------------- On Jul 26, 2011, at 20:08, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you, which is "This is the same entity that visited our page at 7:48PM last Tuesday", and what easily trackable IP addresses give you, which is "This is an entity located at 1948 Durhof Street".
With how much identifying information user agents leak nowadays [1] this is almost a moot point. If you can be uniquely identified through the user agent- does it really matter that they can uniquely ID the household as well based on prefix information? 1: http://panopticlick.eff.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- All you need to do with what that site says is write a sh script that deletes and then creates the same user. Stick it in a crontab. Your browser ID changes each time. In addition to browser cookies, be sure to manage your flash cookies... http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings... So, force the DHCP server to give you new addresses (in IPv4; don't know about IPv6, yet), manage your cookies, change your browser IDs regularly. What did I miss? ;-) scott (who's still bristling from the last discussion about this where Valdis kept saying "Privacy is dead. Get used to it." I don't want to roll over and just take it... >;-) )
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:25:30 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
(who's still bristling from the last discussion about this where Valdis kept saying "Privacy is dead. Get used to it."
Man, leave one smiley off and it follows you for life. ;) http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-May/036270.html Yes, Scott, I know it's a hard problem, and many of the issues are non-protocol ones to boot. (And I *thought* I had enough fame as a member of the tinfoil helmet brigade that nobody would seriously think the McNeely quote actually summarized the way I think things should be - though it may well summarize where I think things are headed despite our best efforts...)
On 2011-07-27 03:25 , Scott Weeks wrote:
-------- matt.addison@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: ---------------------
[..] 1: http://panopticlick.eff.org/
All you need to do with what that site says is write a sh script that deletes and then creates the same user.
And there you sprung into a trap. You will be the only one doing this and having no history and thus you stick out very well, as the new guy on the Internet every single day, from a similar prefix, but still accessing a similar set of hosts etc. I think I did a talk about that at CCC last year ;) You are blocking all the facebook/google+ like and the insane amount of advertisement (read: tracking) networks who are included on almost every page do you? As everytime you fetch a page, even if it is not the main site, you also hit them for an ad or a like-button (even if it is just the image and you don't actually click you hit their server) and voila you are tracked anyway. Giving dynamic addresses out thus only still have one valid reason: nomadic users and the ability to aggregate prefixes inside a network. Because when users are static, you just route a /36 to a location and route prefixes out of that to the users and voila. When they are nomadic/mobile you don't want all those millions of /48s polluting your iBGP though. For every other case, dynamic addresses just make no sense, except for the cash cow that they are and that is the real reason that is the default being offered, as technically they cost more money. Greets, Jeroen
participants (3)
-
Jeroen Massar -
Scott Weeks -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu