4 ms·

> "Giving up on the future of the Internet in a futile attempt to stop your porn habits being tracked is not a valid argument against IPv6." Is the network adm

> "Giving up on the future of the Internet in a futile attempt to stop your porn habits being tracked is not a valid argument against IPv6." Is the network admin version of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?"

jiggawatts 3y ago
The loudest people arguing against IPv6 are often hiding the kind of behaviour I really don’t care to protect. Drug purchases on the dark web or exchanging child porn are common reasons to be this paranoid. Normal people just use a VPN or a cloud proxy and move on with their lives. It’s all academic anyway. It’s hilariously easy and effective to build up an identity via browser fingerprinting, or similar techniques. Ironically, the more crazy “protections” you layer on, the more special and distinct that fingerprint becomes. As a case in point: running a Tor client makes you a high priory target for the NSA and similar state agencies. To the point that something like half of all Tor nodes are rumored to be compromised! PS: IPv6 is such a vast number space that brute force scanning the Internet to look for vulnerabilities will go from a “hilariously simple Python script” to “literally impossible”! People worried about security and privacy should be rushing to switch to IPv6 because it’ll permanently block all drive-by attacks!
- drtgh 3y ago
  > The loudest people arguing against IPv6 are often hiding the kind of behaviour I really don’t care to protect. Drug purchases on the dark web or exchanging child porn are common reasons to be this paranoid. > Normal people just use a VPN or a cloud proxy [...] Ad hominem << The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic [...] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    Unfortunately, this is the sad reality of the situation. I've seen a number of online arguments where someone was "fighting the good fight" against corporate censorship, getting their account locked for "no reason", or whatever. In a few such cases the site admin responded with "you're a relentless spammer, that is why you were banned". Or in one such case, "you were sending unsolicited dick picks to underage girls". Not everyone is nice. Some people's ideal for the Internet is not my ideal for the Internet. I don't have to agree with everyone, and I don't think infinite protections should be granted to people like that at great cost to everyone else.
  - orangeboats 3y ago
    On the other hand, the grandparent comment (by guilhas) was engaging in strawman fallacy by misconstruing the top comment (by jiggawatts): > Giving up on the future of the Internet in a futile attempt to stop your porn habits being tracked is not a valid argument against IPv6 should certainly not be simplified into > If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear in the context of the full original comment which mentioned that hiding behind an CGNAT IP address is _not_ hiding, given that other more robust (and already prevalent) methods of tracking exist. Obviously, two wrongs do not make a right, but since we are already talking about logical fallacies I might as well warn all the readers here that this thread is full of 'em - take the comments with a grain of salt.
    - drtgh 3y ago
      The logic of that remarked Ad hominem is to hide details of your IP by paying additional services, because depreciable and disgusting people does it for free.
      - orangeboats 3y ago
        He's not wrong though, although the way he put it was harsh. You can't truly hide your IP with mere CGNAT. Epsecially when modern CGNAT is all about "how to log the 5-tuple efficiently?"[0] You need a log-less VPN service at the very least if you desire true privacy. Otherwise, IPv6 with privacy extension will achieve the same effect as CGNAT. [0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6888#section-4 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6888#section-4
        drtgh 3y ago
        I think it would be logical to assume that the aforementioned depreciable and disgusting people are already using Tor or VPNs/ proxies. There is no problem at all with the police or Interpol wanting to track a CGNAT map requested to the ISP through legal channels. This is why ISPs are required by law to retain the logs. The privacy extension is for use on the rest of internet.
Dylan16807 3y ago
No, because both options are about the same privacy-wise. A better phrase to pull out is "neither necessary nor sufficient".

jiggawatts 3y ago

The loudest people arguing against IPv6 are often hiding the kind of behaviour I really don’t care to protect. Drug purchases on the dark web or exchanging child porn are common reasons to be this paranoid. Normal people just use a VPN or a cloud proxy and move on with their lives. It’s all academic anyway. It’s hilariously easy and effective to build up an identity via browser fingerprinting, or similar techniques. Ironically, the more crazy “protections” you layer on, the more special and distinct that fingerprint becomes. As a case in point: running a Tor client makes you a high priory target for the NSA and similar state agencies. To the point that something like half of all Tor nodes are rumored to be compromised! PS: IPv6 is such a vast number space that brute force scanning the Internet to look for vulnerabilities will go from a “hilariously simple Python script” to “literally impossible”! People worried about security and privacy should be rushing to switch to IPv6 because it’ll permanently block all drive-by attacks!

drtgh 3y ago
> The loudest people arguing against IPv6 are often hiding the kind of behaviour I really don’t care to protect. Drug purchases on the dark web or exchanging child porn are common reasons to be this paranoid. > Normal people just use a VPN or a cloud proxy [...] Ad hominem << The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic [...] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  Unfortunately, this is the sad reality of the situation. I've seen a number of online arguments where someone was "fighting the good fight" against corporate censorship, getting their account locked for "no reason", or whatever. In a few such cases the site admin responded with "you're a relentless spammer, that is why you were banned". Or in one such case, "you were sending unsolicited dick picks to underage girls". Not everyone is nice. Some people's ideal for the Internet is not my ideal for the Internet. I don't have to agree with everyone, and I don't think infinite protections should be granted to people like that at great cost to everyone else.
- orangeboats 3y ago
  On the other hand, the grandparent comment (by guilhas) was engaging in strawman fallacy by misconstruing the top comment (by jiggawatts): > Giving up on the future of the Internet in a futile attempt to stop your porn habits being tracked is not a valid argument against IPv6 should certainly not be simplified into > If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear in the context of the full original comment which mentioned that hiding behind an CGNAT IP address is _not_ hiding, given that other more robust (and already prevalent) methods of tracking exist. Obviously, two wrongs do not make a right, but since we are already talking about logical fallacies I might as well warn all the readers here that this thread is full of 'em - take the comments with a grain of salt.
  - drtgh 3y ago
    The logic of that remarked Ad hominem is to hide details of your IP by paying additional services, because depreciable and disgusting people does it for free.
    - orangeboats 3y ago
      He's not wrong though, although the way he put it was harsh. You can't truly hide your IP with mere CGNAT. Epsecially when modern CGNAT is all about "how to log the 5-tuple efficiently?"[0] You need a log-less VPN service at the very least if you desire true privacy. Otherwise, IPv6 with privacy extension will achieve the same effect as CGNAT. [0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6888#section-4 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6888#section-4
      - drtgh 3y ago
        I think it would be logical to assume that the aforementioned depreciable and disgusting people are already using Tor or VPNs/ proxies. There is no problem at all with the police or Interpol wanting to track a CGNAT map requested to the ISP through legal channels. This is why ISPs are required by law to retain the logs. The privacy extension is for use on the rest of internet.

Dylan16807 3y ago

No, because both options are about the same privacy-wise. A better phrase to pull out is "neither necessary nor sufficient".