[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] They're out of IPv4 Addresses!

[Holly Raiche]

Hi John

I can't verify Geoff's technical explanation, but he did work for Telstra as one of their star technical people and he is chief scientist with APNIC. And I did use the term carrier  but, to be more precise, ISPs in this country are also carriers - which may not be the case in other legislative regimes.  As to privacy, the other point Geoff  makes is that what is happening is contrary to the Interception legislation - or should be considered so. The difficulty with privacy legislation (not just in Australia) is the definition of 'personal information' which is the lynchpin of whether or not privacy has been breached.  Does it include phone numbers and IP addresses.  There are suggested amendments to the privacy legislation here that would, in essence, include information - that combined with other information, can identify a person (paraphrased) But one of the privacy issues is how personal information - that which is being protected - is defined.

HOlly
On 17/09/2012, at 2:42 AM, John R. Levine wrote:

>> As he explains, with NATing, the carriers gain information about what IP addresses are going where - information they can flog to advertisers.
> 
> This argument makes no sense.  A snoopy ISP could as easily collect this information from non-NAT routers as from NAT boxes.
> 
> In Australia, I would have thought that privacy laws would make selling that kind of information illegal.  In the US they use noxious services like phorm to collect and sell info, no NAT needed.
> 
> R's,
> John_______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org