Re: ICR "Unique Identifiers"

> On 4 Nov 2015, at 18:15, Andrew Cormack <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>=20
> Drafting of that definition is awful. =46rom the context of the draft =
Bill I'd presumed ICRs were full URLs! If NAT/DHCP logs, then why the =
additional limits on access/use in c47(4)?
>=20
> BTW, has anyone compared+contrasted clause 51(1)(b) with clause 1(1) =
of the Comms Data Bill? =46rom a quick look I can't see anything in =
today's Bill that limits what a "filtering arrangement" might be, so =
long as it "facilitates the obtaining of communications data". If there =
really are no statutory limits, that purpose could stretch a *lot* wider =
than the "API to ISP logging systems" that I've seen mentioned on =
Twitter. Might a duty to use weak/backdoor crypto, even, be covered by =
"facilitating the obtaining of communications data=E2=80=9D?

My hands are full getting my thesis corrections in, but once I=E2=80=99ve =
done that I=E2=80=99ll fish out an analysis I did of the filtering =
arrangements in the draft Snooper=E2=80=99s Charter, which were much =
more opaque but presumably covered roughly the same territory.

ian

>=20
> Andrew
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ukcrypto-bounces-QGMSyCZBOSwv4zxTlrOuLwNdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org [mailto:ukcrypto-
>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
>> Sent: 04 November 2015 16:19
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: ICR "Unique Identifiers"
>>=20
>> In article <C5A5B053-5205-4B8B-A581-769A4794B196-BFib/[email protected]>, Ian
>> Batten <igb-BFib/[email protected]> writes
>>> What?  What?  What is this on about?  I=E2=80=99m guessing it means =
you
>>> need to store whatever the token was that was used to issue an IP
>>> number (IMEI, modem MAC, etc), but it=E2=80=99s surely not going to =
be able
>>> to do anyhing about downstream NAT
>>=20
>> It's not a secret that they are trying to "do something" about
>> Carrier-Grade NAT, which has always been a characteristic of most GSM
>> data access, but is now infiltrating fixed broadband, largely because =
of
>> the exhaustion of IPv4 addressing.
>>=20
>> It's the 2015 equivalent of wanting to know which subscriber had =
which
>> dynamic IP address (at a specific time/date) issued from a dial-up =
modem
>> in the 90's.
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>=20