Two years ago Pablo and I did a survey to check the advance of IPv6
implementations on Latin-American ccTLDs, you can find the doc here:
http://www.lac.ipv6tf.org/docs/Survey_ccTLD_LACv2.pdf
This is not based on the user experience but on a survey that the
ccTLD managers answered. We asked
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fred Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
What I find interesting here is the Jekyll/Hyde nature of it. European
ISPs are required to keep expensive logs of the behavior of subscribers
for forensic data mining, accessible under subpoena, for extensive
periods like
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean
Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address
isn't
enough to identify a person.
In Europe, folks are fighting the Google claiming that an IP address is
enough to identify a person.
I guess it depends
Heya,
In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address isn't
enough to identify a person.
In Europe, folks are fighting the Google claiming that an IP address is
enough to identify a person.
I guess it depends on which side of the pond you are on.
They are
I am frankly shocked that some people claim that you cannot identify people by
the IP address. There was a scandal in the States where a well known ISP
released search records and the New York Times was able to identify individuals
using the IP address together with the search records.
If a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
no fundamental contradiction in the proposition that private sector
information can be mandated to be kept for minimum periods, is
confidential, but nevertheless can be acquired by lawful
Rod Beck wrote:
I am frankly shocked that some people claim that you cannot identify
people by the IP address. There was a scandal in the States where a well
known ISP released search records and the New York Times was able to
identify individuals using the IP address together with the search
I refer you to the following posting:
Our University uses dynamic addressing but we are able to identify likely users
in response to the RIAA stuff. There is a hidden step in here, at least for our
University, in the IP-to-Person mapping. Our network essentially tracks the
IP-to-MAC
Rod Beck wrote:
I refer you to the following posting:
It is easy to back into people's identity.
So simple even a caveman can do it
http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac/
--
J. Oquendo
SGFA #579 (FW+VPN v4.1)
SGFE #574 (FW+VPN v4.1)
wget
Eric Gauthier wrote:
Heya,
In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address isn't
enough to identify a person.
In Europe, folks are fighting the Google claiming that an IP address is
enough to identify a person.
I guess it depends on which side of the pond you are on.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J. Oquendo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Putting aside for a moment the issue of whose dollars pay for it
there is no fundamental contradiction in the proposition that private
sector information can be mandated to be kept for minimum periods, is
confidential, but
Rod Beck wrote:
With all due respect, it is easy back into a person's identity or a
household's identity using the IP address together with other information.
It's done all the time by ISPs for law enforcement and it's fruitless
for you to deny it.
No one said it wasn't easy all I'm
We have a similar system based around Cisco's CNR which is a popular
DHCP/DNS system used by large ISP's and other large organization and it
is the IP+Timestamp coupled with the owner to MAC relationship which
allows unique identification of a user and we have strict data
retention policies
Hi Jeff,
I agree. But gives a lot more information that most people will be comfortable
disclosing.
It may not guarantee identity, but it can help narrow it down to a household or
billing account.
I think it is time that privacy trump business interests.
Roderick S. Beck
Director of
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:44:55PM -0800, Lou Katz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 05:52:41PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address isn't
enough to identify a person.
In Europe, folks are fighting the Google claiming that an IP
Robin Stevens wrote:
Can IP addresses always identify a unique individual? Definitely not,
not even to those of us with access to the logs. NAT, MAC-spoofing,
shared/multi-user systems and so forth still get in the way from time to
time. Newer technologies such as 802.11x will stop some
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
o netsol understands glue
REGISTRY part of NetSol here, I think David means the REGISTRAR part no?
To my knowledge, there is no registry part of Network Solutions.
Network Solutions and VeriSign are two distinct companies with
distinct
On Jan 24, 2008 10:55 AM, Matt Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Christopher Morrow wrote:
o netsol understands glue
REGISTRY part of NetSol here, I think David means the REGISTRAR part no?
To my knowledge, there is no registry part of Network Solutions.
Network Solutions appears to have some level of support for RRs
because I am aware of domain names registered through them that have
RRs.
it is pushing glue to the parent zone, com et alia, that is the
problem.
randy
I'm sorry, but, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how an IP can
be considered
personally identifying.
For example, in my home, I have static addresses. However, the number
of
different people using those addresses would, to me, imply that you
cannot
personally identify anyone
Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm sorry, but, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how an IP can
be considered
personally identifying.
In the case the german regulator is dealing with the ip address is not
be considered exclusive of the rest of a data set. The question is given
a commercially
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:35:41 PST, Owen DeLong said:
I'm sorry, but, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how an IP can
be considered personally identifying.
I dunno. I think I have a pretty good guess of who 192.159.10.227 is, or
at least who it was as of 14:35 -0800 today.
On Jan 24, 2008 6:10 AM, Scott McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a similar system based around Cisco's CNR which is a popular
DHCP/DNS system used by large ISP's and other large organization and it
is the IP+Timestamp coupled with the owner to MAC relationship which
allows unique
I dunno. I think I have a pretty good guess of who 192.159.10.227 is, or
at least who it was as of 14:35 -0800 today.
Well, let me ask you you think 171.70.120.60 is. I'll give you a hint;
at this instant, there are 72 of us.
Here's another question. Whom would you suspect 171.71.241.89 is? At
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:39:53 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What we can do with IP addresses is conclude that the user of the
machine with an address is likely to be one of its usual users. We
can't say that with 100% certainty, because there are any number of
ways people can get unusual
Ah, that old-age problem of designing redundancy to cover one failure, but
not two.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Justin Shore
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:41 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Level3 in the Midwest is
On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:39:53 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What we can do with IP addresses is conclude that the user of the
machine with an address is likely to be one of its usual users. We
can't say that with 100% certainty, because
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:33:20 PST, Owen DeLong said:
And oddly enough, license plates on cars act *exactly the same way* - but
nobody seems at all surprised when police can work backwards from a plate
and come up with a suspect (who, admittedly, may not have been
involved if
the car
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:33:20PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:39:53 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What we can do with IP addresses is conclude that the user of the
machine with an address is likely to be one of its
29 matches
Mail list logo
