isis writes: > Dynamism, to the extent that it prevents geolocation, in IPv4 address > assignment is mostly a thing of the past. I'm usually able to > accurately track an IPv4 address down to the city, and I'm sure they > can do much better.
It will be interesting to see what ISPs do with IPv6 assignment policies and how much they can be influenced about this. I was thinking of writing a blog post describing how, depending on what the ISPs do about this, IPv6 could be drastically better than IPv4 for user privacy, or drastically worse. After all, an end-user could get anything from an unrecognizably different IPv6 address _per-TCP connection_ to a single globally unique IPv6 address _per-device lifetime_. The latter was originally seriously proposed as the default way of assigning IPv6 addresses because it would make some kinds of roaming easier -- using the device EUI-64 directly in the address. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941#section-1.2 When talking to journalists about IP geolocation recently, I've been using the example of Skyhook Wireless. http://www.skyhookwireless.com/ They're combining observations from multiple sources, including queries from mobile devices that are connected to wifi networks, to build associations between locations and IP addresses that may be down to the building level. (Google and Microsoft, at least, also have device positioning services that make similar kinds of observations.) -- Seth Schoen <[email protected]> Senior Staff Technologist https://www.eff.org/ Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/join 815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 +1 415 436 9333 x107 -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
