3 ms·
It’s ok to understand something and disagree with it. It’s another to proudly wear ignorance on one’s sleeve. That’s never a good look. There’s no way in which
by kstrauser 10mo ago
It’s ok to understand something and disagree with it. It’s another to proudly wear ignorance on one’s sleeve. That’s never a good look.
There’s no way in which IPv6 is less private than IPv4. An ISP issues your house an IPv4 address and an IPv6 /48 network. Both of those can be subpoenaed equally. The privacy extensions work as advertised.
And in reality land, the big companies are the ones pushing for the upgrade because they’re the ones hardest hit by IPv4’s inherent limitations and increasing costs. Same rando in Tampa isn’t leading the charge because it doesn’t affect them much either way.
- iso1631 10mo agoGoogle aren't subpoenaed Perhaps this is the difference, some people are concerned with being anonymous from companies like google, amazon, etc. Some don't mind that, as long as they are anonymous from a government. Your mention of subpoena suggests you don't care about google tracking you.
- kstrauser 10mo agoI was directly replying to someone saying they could subpoena the temporal owner of an IPv6 address, as though that were somehow different than IPv4. The tracking is a moot point. You can be tracked using the same technologies whether you connect though v4 or v6, and neither stack has the advantage there.
- willis936 10mo agoIPv6 eliminates the possibility of proxies / VPNs. Being tracked simply by IP becomes non-optional.
- Dagger2 10mo agoWat? It, um. No, it doesn't do that. You can use proxies and VPNs in v6, and you're about as trackable by IP as you are on v4.
- willis936 10mo agoName one VPN service that supports IPv6. Perhaps the most existential reason IPv6 was invented was to make proxies obsolete. Either you use address translation or you don't.
- Dagger2 10mo agoProton VPN? And no, proxies were either never obsoleted or they were obsoleted by routing. Nothing to do with v6.
- willis936 10mo agoMy bar for "support" is higher than "linux only and you need IPv4 to initialize". https://protonvpn.com/support/prevent-ipv6-vpn-leaks https://protonvpn.com/support/prevent-ipv6-vpn-leaks
- Dagger2 10mo agoThat's a valid criticism of Proton VPN, but if it works even just on Linux it's sufficient to demonstrate that v6 doesn't eliminate the possibility of VPNs.
- iso1631 10mo agoVPNs as a technology, gre/ipsec and wireguard. I assume others. VPNs as a youtube sold service. Mullvad/mozillavpn for one I get an IP of fc00:bbbb:bbbb:bb01::1 and it uses NAT66 to place me in New York despite being in the UK 1.|-- fc00:bbbb:bbbb:bb01::1 0.0% 10 78.6 80.2 78.6 82.0 1.2 2.|-- 2607:9000:a000:34::1 0.0% 10 80.1 80.3 79.3 81.2 0.7 3.|-- ??? 100.0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.|-- 2607:f740:70:101::1 0.0% 10 82.2 83.9 79.8 104.3 7.2 5.|-- 2001:550:2:d::4a:1 90.0% 10 80.1 80.1 80.1 80.1 0.0 6.|-- be3448.agr22.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (2001:550:0:1000::9a36:1a9) 60.0% 10 80.4 81.0 79.2 82.9 1.5 and on
- kstrauser 10mo agoThis is factually wrong. I have a VPN between my VPC and my house so services can communicate securely without configuring each one separately with TLS.
- woooooo 10mo agoGoogle gets subpoenad all the fucking time. They have whole departments set up to handle the case load. Some public evidence: https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/google-lays-off-critical-workers-responsible-for-public-safety-initiatives-and-regulatory-compliance https://www.alphabetworkersunion.org/press/google-lays-off-c...
- iso1631 10mo agoSorry I meant to say google aren't subpoenaing The people I want to protect my privacy from are google, facebook, amazon, they can't subpoena my IP, they can track me just fine though.
- anon_trader 10mo ago> There’s no way in which IPv6 is less private than IPv4 With IPv4 behind CGNAT you share an address with hundreds of other users. This won't protect you against a targeted subpoena, but tracking companies typically don't have this kind of power, so they have to resort to other fingerprinting options. On the other hand, an IPv6 address is effectively a unique, and somewhat persistent, tracking ID, 48/56/64-bit long (ISP dependent), concatenated with some random garbage. And of course every advertiser, every tracking company and their dog know which part is random garbage; you are not going to fool anyone by rotating it with privacy extensions.
- kstrauser 10mo agoCGNAT is nowhere near the common case yet. And frankly, I’m horrified that anyone’s describing it as a good thing. CGNAT is the devil, even if it accidentally has one not-terrible feature, and especially when ISPs realize that they can sell those NAT logs to companies who still want to track end users. For tracking purposes, an IPv6 address is 48 bits long. That’s what identifies a customer premise router, exactly like a IPv4 /32 identifies one. The remaining 80 random bits might as well be treated like longer source port numbers: they identify one particular connection but aren’t persistent and can’t map back to a particular device behind that router afterward.
- orangeboats 10mo ago>CGNAT is nowhere near the common case yet. And frankly, I’m horrified that anyone’s describing it as a good thing. For some reason, "CGNAT == privacy" is a very common sentiment on Hacker News. Yeah, Hacker News. It's bewildering, and after my last comment [0] talking about it, I have kinda already given up trying to convince people that CGNAT is devilish and not at all a privacy protector. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40180058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40180058
- kstrauser 10mo agoIt’s right up there with “NAT == security”, which is also disappointing for here. It’s not so much the sentiment, as how confidently it’s asserted.