4 ms·

< “It is just pinging around.” Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? Or

< “It is just pinging around.” Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? Personally I think there is little difference between virtual unwarranted data collection and physical intrusions, and just because there isn’t some kind of barrier doesn’t make it acceptable. “Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.” I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent.

gruez 5y ago
>Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. >Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? so... jehovah's witnesses? >I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent. How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent"
- starfleet_bop 5y ago
  > that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home. In addition, the right to privacy is not limited by arbitrary definitions of shamefulness. > so... jehovah's witnesses? That’s a whataboutism logical fallacy. Just because some people do it and get away with it doesn’t make it acceptable. > How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent" That’s kind of a straw man IMO. An IP address is public information and is transmitted by every IP packet. You can’t compare it to someone’s home address which is normally private by default. By associating a location with an IP address, you are effectively transmitting your location with every IP packet.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    IPs are considered to be PI by the GDPR though...
    - gruez 5y ago
      So are addresses.
    - ozim 5y ago
      162.23.199.215 So we have a GDPR breach now as I posted some IP address here :). They are PI if you also have other data that can tie it to an individual without sending request to his internet provider. That company in the article is mostly tying IP to a country/region. There is no technical way to get any info about individual from the IP address alone. I also disagree with "which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual" most often it is not tied and if it is then only temporarily and only if and when user logs into your system and you have other information about him that he gave out. With CG NAT and often dynamic IP allocation by providers. In the end any "outrage" is not substantiated because the way IP addresses are managed you have whois registry that is public and that will tell you which provider has this IP and country/region as well. So they don't do anything that is not already possible.
      - BlueTemplar 5y ago
        > With CG NAT and often dynamic IP allocation by providers. Which are both bad practices on the way out as IPv6 becomes the norm. (Static IP prefixes - to illustrate another PI aspect of this - also mean that ISPs don't have to keep IP logs, which for better or worse, laws require of them for potential future law enforcement purposes.) And indeed, like other PI, their collection only becomes problematic when it's associated with other PI and/or is done on a massive enough scale (like this service is doing ?) - also remember how government databases are forbidden from merging for this very reason.
    - 01acheru 5y ago
      IANAL but that’s kind of a generalization of the GDPR though, maybe too broad. IPs may be treated as personal data, but it doesn’t apply to each and every case you handle or store an IP address.

gruez 5y ago

>Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. >Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? so... jehovah's witnesses? >I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent. How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent"

starfleet_bop 5y ago
> that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home. In addition, the right to privacy is not limited by arbitrary definitions of shamefulness. > so... jehovah's witnesses? That’s a whataboutism logical fallacy. Just because some people do it and get away with it doesn’t make it acceptable. > How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent" That’s kind of a straw man IMO. An IP address is public information and is transmitted by every IP packet. You can’t compare it to someone’s home address which is normally private by default. By associating a location with an IP address, you are effectively transmitting your location with every IP packet.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  IPs are considered to be PI by the GDPR though...
  - gruez 5y ago
    So are addresses.
  - ozim 5y ago
    162.23.199.215 So we have a GDPR breach now as I posted some IP address here :). They are PI if you also have other data that can tie it to an individual without sending request to his internet provider. That company in the article is mostly tying IP to a country/region. There is no technical way to get any info about individual from the IP address alone. I also disagree with "which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual" most often it is not tied and if it is then only temporarily and only if and when user logs into your system and you have other information about him that he gave out. With CG NAT and often dynamic IP allocation by providers. In the end any "outrage" is not substantiated because the way IP addresses are managed you have whois registry that is public and that will tell you which provider has this IP and country/region as well. So they don't do anything that is not already possible.
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      > With CG NAT and often dynamic IP allocation by providers. Which are both bad practices on the way out as IPv6 becomes the norm. (Static IP prefixes - to illustrate another PI aspect of this - also mean that ISPs don't have to keep IP logs, which for better or worse, laws require of them for potential future law enforcement purposes.) And indeed, like other PI, their collection only becomes problematic when it's associated with other PI and/or is done on a massive enough scale (like this service is doing ?) - also remember how government databases are forbidden from merging for this very reason.
  - 01acheru 5y ago
    IANAL but that’s kind of a generalization of the GDPR though, maybe too broad. IPs may be treated as personal data, but it doesn’t apply to each and every case you handle or store an IP address.