3 ms·

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is. In cases like the one addressed in Belgium, the ISP actually assigns the same outward-facing IP address to multiple unr

by 4bpp 8y ago

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is. In cases like the one addressed in Belgium, the ISP actually assigns the same outward-facing IP address to multiple unrelated customers, and NAT is performed on the ISP side. Somebody who has merely recorded the IP address that made a request therefore has no legal way of determining that it came from you or someone close to you, rather than a number of complete strangers who were assigned the same address, unless the ISP maintains a record of what connections were mapped. As far as I know, in the US this is mostly common for mobile providers. If we are just talking about a NAT in your home LAN, this won't help you for privacy/security: law enforcement and whoever else still know that the IP address is yours.

Dagger2 8y ago
That would normally be called CGNAT. Yes, that does change things somewhat... except what's actually going to happen is that people will record the port number and the time as well as the IP, and the ISP is going to record every single connection you make in a big database, and then bill you for the privilege of doing it. Law enforcement will still be able to identify you, now your ISP has a record of everything you've done, and you're still dealing with the headaches of NAT all the time. Doesn't really seem worth it to me.
- 4bpp 8y ago
  As far as I know, several court cases in Germany have confirmed[1] that the mapping of dynamically assigned IP to customer identity may only be stored for 7 days. I imagine the same upper bound, or an even tighter one, applies to the records you are talking about. [1] https://www.e-recht24.de/news/datenschutz/10387-datenschutz-speicherung-ip-adresse.html https://www.e-recht24.de/news/datenschutz/10387-datenschutz-... (in German)
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    ISPs use port logs for the same reasons as address logs so I imagine a court would treat them the same.
  - Dagger2 8y ago
    Around here I'd expect something more like a 7 year minimum to be more likely... Limiting the timeframe does improve the costs and the privacy impact, but the ISP will still need to build and run all of the logging infrastructure, and the end result is that you'll still be identifiable.

by 4bpp 8y ago

Dagger2 8y ago

That would normally be called CGNAT. Yes, that does change things somewhat... except what's actually going to happen is that people will record the port number and the time as well as the IP, and the ISP is going to record every single connection you make in a big database, and then bill you for the privilege of doing it. Law enforcement will still be able to identify you, now your ISP has a record of everything you've done, and you're still dealing with the headaches of NAT all the time. Doesn't really seem worth it to me.

4bpp 8y ago
As far as I know, several court cases in Germany have confirmed[1] that the mapping of dynamically assigned IP to customer identity may only be stored for 7 days. I imagine the same upper bound, or an even tighter one, applies to the records you are talking about. [1] https://www.e-recht24.de/news/datenschutz/10387-datenschutz-speicherung-ip-adresse.html https://www.e-recht24.de/news/datenschutz/10387-datenschutz-... (in German)
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  ISPs use port logs for the same reasons as address logs so I imagine a court would treat them the same.
- Dagger2 8y ago
  Around here I'd expect something more like a 7 year minimum to be more likely... Limiting the timeframe does improve the costs and the privacy impact, but the ISP will still need to build and run all of the logging infrastructure, and the end result is that you'll still be identifiable.