Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

[DY Kim <[e-mail]>]

Points taken. Thanks.

---
DY

> On 1 Nov 2017, at 10:59, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think that misses the point. If you identify yourself to the phone, it knows that you are holding it. You might then pass it to someone else, who uses it. The phone doesn't know who is holding it, only that you unlocked it.
> 
> But that's not the point. The point is that someone *else* observing your phone's traffic or location data makes the assumption that the phone is with or being used by you. You didn't present your fingerprint to them; they are observing after the fact and making inferences.
> 
> Now, as an investigative tool, that makes sense - in a high percentage of cases, the person using your phone is you. So they can use that as a working assumption in the conduct of an investigation. But the working assumption doesn't prove anything, it only gives hints that have to be further verified to turn into proof.
> 
>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 5:47 AM, DY Kim <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> When unlocking your smart phone, you might use the ‘finger touch’ identification, in which case the device use might identify the individual.
>> 
>> When a password or swipe pattern is used, the association might be weaker since those could be stolen.
>> 
>> ---
>> DY
>> 
>>> On 1 Nov 2017, at 10:42, Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> There really needs to be something else that supports or proves use of a device other than an assumption that an IP address is tightly coupled to a device's owner, and therefore all actions associated with an IP address are those of the device's owner.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>