how much privacy do we need? (was Re: Advantages and disadvantages of using CB64 type of identifiers

El 08/07/2004, a las 20:58, Erik Nordmark escribió:
>
> So it isn't clear to me what problem we are actually trying to solve
> in the privacy space.
>

Looking at a very cool presentation made by Alberto Escudero at the 
IPv6 cluster meeting, there is a definition of privacy rights as:

"1.The right to be left alone
  2.The right to decide: when, how, and to  what extent information 
about them is  communicated to others.
  3.The right to secrecy, anonymity and  solitude."

which it translates for mobile nodes as

"The capability of a mobile  node to conceal the  relation between  
location and personal  identifiable  information from third  parties 
while the user is  on the move."

(if you are interested, you can find the full presentation at the 
author's home page http://www.it.kth.se/~aep/)

So, i agree with Erik that there are three roles that an app can play:
- Server
- Client
- p2p participant

I guess that the privacy concerns don't apply to the server role, since 
it is the server's will to be publicly available, in order to be 
reachable by clients.

So, imho the clients may require some privacy features. Basically this 
means (trying to apply above definition) that a client may wish to 
conceal the act that it is the same client who performs different 
communications. That is, if a client contacts a given server, then this 
client may wish to conceal the fact that he is contacting the same 
server again, or another server. So, privacy in a client, for me is 
being capable of hiding that the same client have performed multiple 
communications with the same of different servers.

In the case of p2p participants, i guess that the main difference from 
the server case is that the p2p participant may not want to disclose 
its identity to everyone (assuming that a server is a public server). 
so in the case of a p2p participant it may behave in a hybrid mode, 
where it allows some nodes to be able to recognize it as the same of 
previous communications, while in other cases, it may which not to be 
recognized.

Now, imho, this goals don't impose that we have to have different 
identities for different interfaces, but that we need different 
identities for different communications.
The problem as usual, is how the wedge layer can find out which packets 
belong to which communication.

I guess that in the current arch, privacy extensions provide some 
support for this, and it is based on periodically changing the iid. i 
guess we could try to do the same

Now, just to mix things a bit more, how would a solution like NOID 
support the privacy requirements? Are the DNS times compatible with 
this requirement?

Regards, marcelo


>    Erik
>
>