> From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Dan Wing
>
> If this privacy concern persists, ISP's will be required
> to deploy CGN for privacy. We do not want that.
>
+1 million. Matter of fact, I've made that exact statement before:
http://www.ietf.org/mai
On 2011-11-17 19:03, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Brian E Carpenter
>
> > users who are not behind a CGN reveal their IP address ... every
> > time they send a packet
>
> Hmm. If we're going to have to have a really big share of our users behind
> a CGN _anyway_, to satisfy EU priva
In your previous mail you wrote:
> If this privacy concern persists, ISP's will be required
> to deploy CGN for privacy. We do not want that.
=> nobody wants that but it is the kind of things which can happen
from privacy activists if we continue to provoque them in place to
just not pay
Hi Francis,
On 11/17/2011 04:58 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
> If this privacy concern persists, ISP's will be required
> to deploy CGN for privacy. We do not want that.
=> nobody wants that but it is the kind of things which can happen
from privacy
Dear Hannes,
You said:
>
> I called it "stupid" to use the IP address for authentication
> purposes and the presenters made jokes about that statement
> (in the wrong believe I think they are stupid). Clearly, Joe
> and Pierre also do not believe that the source IP address can
> be used fo
Dear Scott,
You said:
>
> Any persistent identifier that can be used for correlation is risky,
> because correlation can also be done with higher layer activity, so it
> facilitates identification (and that facilitates further correlation,
> and so on, until you have enough information to track
Hi Francis,
>
> To summarize my position:
> 1- I believe this (the devices described in the document) infringes
> my rights as an European citizen (cf European Human Rights) but
> I am not a lawyer so it has to be tested in a court
Sorry but I still don't understand your concern here:
* Th
FWIW - I wonder if anyone in the EU so concerned about their privacy has
a phone number. Or email address - or worse, their own domain ;-)
Joe
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
In your previous mail you wrote:
I have seen the concerns that you and Hannes have raised, and I have
requested Alissa to help out the authors with the privacy aspects of
this document. I can understand why you are objecting to the document
being published as is, but I would like t
On 11/17/2011 5:57 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
I have seen the concerns that you and Hannes have raised, and I have
requested Alissa to help out the authors with the privacy aspects of
this document. I can understand why you are objecting to the doc
One additional point:
I was not able to locate any text requiring IETF documents to include a
"Privacy Considerations" section, or to address privacy issues directly.
I saw some recent *drafts* on this issue, but nothing that is agreed to
currently impact IETF process.
Until those drafts re
> -Original Message-
> From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:18 PM
> To: Noel Chiappa
> Cc: int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Privacy red herrings [ My comments on draft-
> boucadai
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:18 AM, "Dan Wing" wrote:
> I would not want to say that Baidu's use of NAT66 (or NPTv6)
> provides justification for an internet service provider to
> use NAT66 or NPTv6.
Indeed, when this showed up on the chart, it was difficult to understand what
purpose the NAT66 device
13 matches
Mail list logo
