On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]> > >> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there >>> seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses >>> are in some way more antithetical to privacy. >> >> Yes, I agree. I know people who choose provider based on the availability >> of static addresses, I know very few who avoid static address ISPs because >> of this fact. >> >> FUD indeed. > > You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-) > > If the ISP > > a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and > b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days) > > then > > c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a > relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP > address. >
ROFL... Yeah, right... Because the MAC suffix won't do anything. > While this isn't "privacy", per se, that "making harder" is at least > somewhat useful to a client in reducing the odds that such non-ISP/LEO > parties will be unable to tie their visits, assuming they've controlled > the items they *can* control (cookies, flash cookies, etc). > Which is something, what, 1% of people probably even know how to do, let alone practice on a regular basis. > Imperfect security != no security, *as long as you know where the holes are*. > If people want this, they can use RFC-4193 to just about the same effect. The ISP modifying the prefix regularly simply doesn't do much. Owen
