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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

... while in certain other countries, pervasive monitoring was, er...
pervasive.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> This draft discusses issue of privacy in IPv6 network prefix
> >> assignment. Specifically the privacy problems of an assigned network
> >> prefix becoming a persistent identifier for devices (e.g. /64
> >> assignment to devices in mobile networks).  The use of
> >> identifier/locator split is suggested as a solution.
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Lorenzo,
>
> 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).
>
> Tom
>