Delivery-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:28 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E1C1E0AF9
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BC92FF2A;
	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:12:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414CC2FECB
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:11:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id yCjAOXFfvW8c for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:11:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail2.eff.org (mail2.eff.org [173.239.79.204])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16DCD2FE94
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:11:59 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eff.org;
 s=mail2; 
 h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date;
 bh=dqvsbiJcouXllX+obCAYJ0P8ySBr7q0/JVUBjpeT+nM=; 
 b=1QlButBCyDqx32Q+EvuiAVpN4iWG6DKJBBlg4bLqhtteCZf9gEvwDFXyaw4TJmFuVm2Em2s24c6Y8aGr74onnc702m17VvtQFyLZsxgooZKz3YpCYgpuO4FT1GQbOsxNtv2RA2uabD52LrMpGqAFAatRaF29BQhPR9zYCvbZm+E=;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44513 helo=sescenties)
 by mail2.eff.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <schoen@eff.org>) id 1X6lfI-0000fz-Ho
 for tor-talk@lists.torproject.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:11:56 -0700
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:11:56 -0700
From: Seth David Schoen <schoen@eff.org>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Message-ID: <20140714191156.GD12086@sescenties.(null)>
References: <d31648d2e60f70c5195e991fd0b07cb7@openmailbox.org>
 <20140714180609.GB5119@patternsinthevoid.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140714180609.GB5119@patternsinthevoid.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Received-SPF: skipped for local relay
Received-SPF: skipped for local relay
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Questions about NSA monitoring of Tor users.
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

isis writes:

> Dynamism, to the extent that it prevents geolocation, in IPv4 address
> assignment is mostly a thing of the past. I'm usually able to
> accurately track an IPv4 address down to the city, and I'm sure they
> can do much better.

It will be interesting to see what ISPs do with IPv6 assignment policies
and how much they can be influenced about this.

I was thinking of writing a blog post describing how, depending on
what the ISPs do about this, IPv6 could be drastically better than IPv4
for user privacy, or drastically worse.  After all, an end-user could
get anything from an unrecognizably different IPv6 address _per-TCP
connection_ to a single globally unique IPv6 address _per-device
lifetime_.  The latter was originally seriously proposed as the default
way of assigning IPv6 addresses because it would make some kinds of
roaming easier -- using the device EUI-64 directly in the address.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941#section-1.2

When talking to journalists about IP geolocation recently, I've been
using the example of Skyhook Wireless.

http://www.skyhookwireless.com/

They're combining observations from multiple sources, including queries
from mobile devices that are connected to wifi networks, to build
associations between locations and IP addresses that may be down to the
building level.  (Google and Microsoft, at least, also have device
positioning services that make similar kinds of observations.)

-- 
Seth Schoen  <schoen@eff.org>
Senior Staff Technologist                       https://www.eff.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation                  https://www.eff.org/join
815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA  94109       +1 415 436 9333 x107
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

