Re: [Ila] [5gangip] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy-00.txt

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Tom Herbert wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> The draft should state that like any IP address assignment scheme, the
>> addresses used by the host are visible to the network operator and anyone
>> with access to the network operator logs or power to compel the network
>> operator. Thus, randomizing IP addresses does not protect against
>> large-scale surveillance, it can only protect against tracking by third
>> parties.
>
> AFAICT, the legal requirements for providers to store and provide logs
> varies by jurisdication. The EU seems to be pretty far along in
> specifying this. In 2016 an EU court ruled that IP addresses are
> personally identifiable information (PII) when combined with other
> information that can reveal identity. A network provider in it's
> normal operations will know the identity of nodes to which it assign
> addresses and so must safeguard the information since it is PII.
> Providers are required to log addressing mappings (like NAT mappings)
> and must release individual records per legal request. However, I
> don't think under these rules providers are compelled to blindly
> provide all logs to authorities for the purposes of data mining (if
> someone else knows otherwise please interject here).

I think you can safely assume that there are juristictions in the world 
where the authorities have real-time and historical full access to 
anything the operator has logged.

However, there is no technical solution to this human problem, so I don't 
see it as anything we can solve.

Apart from that, it seems to me that you're both saying the same thing.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]