3 ms·

The only possible reason I can fathom that this would be useful would be for tracking unique users behind a NAT (i.e. corporate or educational) who block all co

by btown 11y ago

The only possible reason I can fathom that this would be useful would be for tracking unique users behind a NAT (i.e. corporate or educational) who block all cookies. Seems like a pretty niche edge case in the U.S., but I'd imagine this could be useful in, say, the EU where cookies are opt-in by law?

CamperBob2 11y ago
Or for subscription enforcement. Our local newspaper has a paywall, but I always read it on an iPad with private browsing. That gets me unlimited free access. I'm utterly amazed it's worked as long as it has.
- eli 11y ago
  It might be intentional. The so called leaky paywall. (It's also kinda hard to defeat assuming you want new visitors to be able to read a few articles without a big hassle)
pjc50 11y ago
Tracking, and any other kind of fingerprinting, is opt-in in the EU. The directive does not say "cookie". http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:EN:HTML http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:... "The use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller." So acquiring my internal IP address without consent for reasons other than need for establishing a webrtc connection that the user has asked for is against the law.
- btown 11y ago
  > "stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user" This seems like a very odd way of phrasing the law. The default user-agent string, for instance, is stored on the terminal equipment of the user, albeit in read-only memory. It can be used to distinguish one user from another. Therefore, could one argue that any site that includes the user agent in their logs would be violating this law? And what if the user is not behind a NAT? In that case, the user's external IP address is the one their terminal equipment places in the TCP header... which would mean that it is necessarily stored in said terminal equipment. Did the user give up the right to the privacy of the information by connecting to the website in the first place? Must there be a right-to-refuse all the way down? /s

by btown 11y ago

CamperBob2 11y ago

Or for subscription enforcement. Our local newspaper has a paywall, but I always read it on an iPad with private browsing. That gets me unlimited free access. I'm utterly amazed it's worked as long as it has.

eli 11y ago
It might be intentional. The so called leaky paywall. (It's also kinda hard to defeat assuming you want new visitors to be able to read a few articles without a big hassle)

pjc50 11y ago

Tracking, and any other kind of fingerprinting, is opt-in in the EU. The directive does not say "cookie". http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:EN:HTML http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:... "The use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller." So acquiring my internal IP address without consent for reasons other than need for establishing a webrtc connection that the user has asked for is against the law.

btown 11y ago
> "stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user" This seems like a very odd way of phrasing the law. The default user-agent string, for instance, is stored on the terminal equipment of the user, albeit in read-only memory. It can be used to distinguish one user from another. Therefore, could one argue that any site that includes the user agent in their logs would be violating this law? And what if the user is not behind a NAT? In that case, the user's external IP address is the one their terminal equipment places in the TCP header... which would mean that it is necessarily stored in said terminal equipment. Did the user give up the right to the privacy of the information by connecting to the website in the first place? Must there be a right-to-refuse all the way down? /s