Unique identifiers and privacy
"Christian Huitema" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA09F215BD@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> |
I am concerned with the general statement that we should merely "do no worse than the current state of the art". I am specifically concerned with the use of long lived unique identifiers. We have already got significant feedback on such identifiers in a number of products, e.g. identifiers of CPU chips, identifiers of users of audio-video players, host identifiers in IPv6, use of social security numbers in data bases, and the list goes on. Any unique identifier is a privacy time bomb. Obviously, there are places where unique identifiers are unavoidable. For example, one cannot receive mail without publishing a mail address of some kind. But there are many places where identifiers are in fact not needed. For example, a vast majority of Internet connections involve resolving the name of a server, obtaining the server address or "locator", and exchanging a few packets between a single pair of locators. A cautious design would not mandate use of any identifier in such circumstances. If we do use identifiers, we should obviously allow systems to create short-lived identifiers, and to use different identifiers for different activities. However, we should be very concerned with the default behavior. In practice, many application developers don't bother with advanced API and just use whatever is the default behavior of the stack. A cautious design would be to err on the side of privacy, and to make sure that by default, an application's traffic will use an identifier that is both short-lived and specific to that application. The use of long lived global identifiers should be reserved to those applications that specifically request them. -- Christian Huitema