Hello Roland Perry,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Roland Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">In message<br>
<<a href="mailto:fecfce260811090012m10c0f3d2ud008b07a8a723a39@mail.gmail.com">fecfce260811090012m10c0f3d2ud008b07a8a723a39@mail.gmail.com</a>>, at<br>
13:42:15 on Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>
<<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> writes<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">>What concerns me is the fact that IPV6 seems to have obviated (or made<br>
>impossible) Network Address Translation. This means that everything<br>
>that I ever say on the Internet is linked to my unique, unchangeable<br>
>IPV6 address.<br>
<br>
</div>[My replies here are not about ITU or ICANN, but address wider issues]<br>
<br>
I don't share your pessimism that ipv6 goes hand-in-hand with the demise<br>
of privacy-enhancing techniques (why is it worse than using a static<br>
ipv4 address), and remember there's also a balance to be struck with<br>
those who claim that the Internet's fundamental "end to end" principle<br>
is in danger of being destroyed by over-use of NAT.</blockquote><div><br>I am not so well educated on the technical nuances of IPV6. I notice that you have described ipV4 as "static" - Is ipV6 dynamic, is it designed to be "not-static" ? <br>
<br>I expressed one concern related to ipV6, am not altogether pessimistic nor do I consider ipV4 preferable. I would also share your concerns about the over-use of NAT in ipV4, especially if it endangers the end to end principle.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
>How would I trust the Law and Order agencies to restrict use of these<br>
</div>>[trace-back] technologies only against terrorists and criminals and not<br>
>against the unsuspecting citizens ?<br>
<br>
The same way you trust them (or not) with regard to your telephone<br>
number and associated call logs, your car licence plate, your credit<br>
card bills, or your passport and airline travel itineraries.</blockquote><div><br>Actually there is more to distrust in telephony than on the Internet. Voice processing technologies and the architecture of mobile communication / mobile phones have made it easier for the authorities to monitor mobile communications. A passport is essential, disclosing personal information to travel is inevitable, but the concern is that all these bits and pieces of information shared in different places could get synthesizes into a dossier that could go into a "giant database". Add to that the danger of linking online communication to IP addresses ....<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">
>legislations such as directives by UK to ISPs to retain email logs for<br>
>two years<br>
<br></div><br>Although most of the press coverage is from the UK (due in part to the<br>
highly transparent way measures like this are introduced), this is a<br>
Europe-wide Directive and all the UK is doing is putting that EU<br>
Directive into force (and rather late in the permitted timescale).</blockquote><div><br>Yes, it is Europe wide and so there is a greater cause for concern. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
"Our children, who spend most of their time in cyberspace, are<br>
not taught the basic behaviours in the cyberspace. When they go<br>
out in the street, we tell them, "Be careful. Don't talk to<br>
strangers, don't accept candy from someone you don't know. It<br>
could be a drug that could kill you." But they're out there in<br>
cyberspace without telling them what to do or how to behave.<br>
<br>
>Yes, we will make them paranoid<br>
<br>
</div>There's no need for children to become paranoid, but as you know the<br>
Internet accelerates all the good and the bad in the world. Children are<br>
more vulnerable to scams and "drive by" attacks, and have fewer<br>
inhibitions against publishing their indiscretions and secrets<br>
(including those of their family) for the world to see. Addressing this<br>
is an aspect of "child protection" which is too easily ignored.</blockquote><div><br>Agreed. Children do require a bit of orientation, but we need to educate them in such a way that they do not grow up as a paranoid generation.<br>
<br>Thank you Roland Perry, for your comments . <br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Roland Perry<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy">http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy</a><br>