4 ms·
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 f
by 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 agoThe 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 agoHe'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 agoI 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.
- orangeboats 3y agoAh, the way I intepreted your original comment it seemed that "does it for free" meant "relying on CGNAT" which was why I objected to it.