[Gov 586] Re:ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage Re: [governance] ITU & ICANN in Cairo

[Roland Perry]

In message
<fecfce260811090012m10c0f3d2ud008b07a8a723a39 at mail.gmail.com>, at
13:42:15 on Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<isolatedn at gmail.com> writes
>What concerns me is the fact that IPV6 seems to have obviated (or made
>impossible) Network Address Translation. This means that everything
>that I ever say on the Internet is linked to my unique, unchangeable
>IPV6 address.

[My replies here are not about ITU or ICANN, but address wider issues]

I don't share your pessimism that ipv6 goes hand-in-hand with the demise
of privacy-enhancing techniques (why is it worse than using a static
ipv4 address), and remember there's also a balance to be struck with
those who claim that the Internet's fundamental "end to end" principle
is in danger of being destroyed by over-use of NAT.

>How would I trust the Law and Order agencies to restrict use of these
>[trace-back] technologies only against terrorists and criminals and not
>against the unsuspecting citizens ?

The same way you trust them (or not) with regard to your telephone
number and associated call logs, your car licence plate, your credit
card bills, or your passport and airline travel itineraries.

>legislations such as directives by UK to ISPs to retain email logs for
>two years

Although most of the press coverage is from the UK (due in part to the
highly transparent way measures like this are introduced), this is a
Europe-wide Directive and all the UK is doing is putting that EU
Directive into force (and rather late in the permitted timescale).

        "Our children, who spend most of their time in cyberspace, are
        not taught the basic behaviours in the cyberspace. When they go
        out in the street, we tell them, "Be careful. Don't talk to
        strangers, don't accept candy from someone you don't know. It
        could be a drug that could kill you." But they're out there in
        cyberspace without telling them what to do or how to behave.

>Yes, we will make them paranoid

There's no need for children to become paranoid, but as you know the
Internet accelerates all the good and the bad in the world. Children are
more vulnerable to scams and "drive by" attacks, and have fewer
inhibitions against publishing their indiscretions and secrets
(including those of their family) for the world to see. Addressing this
is an aspect of "child protection" which is too easily ignored.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance