W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org > July 1999

Fw: Open Letter to CDT

From: Jim Fleming <jfleming@anet.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:33:11 -0500
Message-ID: <015201bed13b$3a8fc990$0101010a@naperville.unir.com>
To: <www-p3p-public-comments@w3.org>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fleming <jfleming@anet-chi.com>
To: deirdre@cdt.org <deirdre@cdt.org>
Cc: jberman@cdt.org <jberman@cdt.org>; lkessler@cdt.org <lkessler@cdt.org>;
commerce@mail.house.gov <commerce@mail.house.gov>; tom.bliley@mail.house.gov
<tom.bliley@mail.house.gov>
Date: Sunday, July 18, 1999 10:58 AM
Subject: Open Letter to CDT


>Ms. DEIRDRE MULLIGAN
>The Center For Democracy & Technology
>1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
>Washington, DC 20006
>(v) +1.202.637.9800
>(f) +1.202.637.0968
>
>@@@ http://www.cdt.org/testimony/mulligan071399.html
>TESTIMONY OF DEIRDRE MULLIGAN
>STAFF COUNSEL
>THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
>BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
>SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
>JULY 13, 1999
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>I read your testimony noted above before the U.S. House Commerce
>Committee regarding privacy on the Internet. I share many of the same
>concerns about privacy. I was somewhat surprised that you did not focus
>on one of the major Internet developments, IPv6, which has the potential
>to either end people's privacy or enhance people's privacy depending
>on how the technology is deployed.
>
>In the interest of making more money and improving their PR images
>the ICANN, ARIN, ISOC, and IETF, etc. are rushing to deploy IPv6 without
>concern for the privacy issues of their plan. They are encouraging
>that people's NIC card addresses be encoded in each of the IPv6 packets.
>In my opinion, this is a potential violation of privacy because it exposes
>the type of equipment the person is using, as well as a unique identifier
>tied directly to that person's desktop. The NIC card address is assigned
>by the manufacturer. This is similar to the Pentium serial number issue.
>
>http://www.privacy.org/bigbrotherinside/
>
>Apparently the regional registries who make millions of dollars
>selling IP addresses do not care about these issues. They appear
>to be proceeding as shown here. They are blindly following the IETF.
>
>@@@@ http://www.arin.net/ipv6/ipv6-regserv.html
>
>"Because all interface IDs are required to be in the EUI-64 format (as
>specified in RFC 2373 and RFC 2374) the boundary between the network and
>host portions is "hard" and ID address space cannot be further sub-divided.
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>@@@@@ http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html
>
>"The IEEE defined 64-bit global identifier (EUI-64) is assigned by a
>manufacturer that has been assigned a company_id value by the IEEE
>Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation of the
>24-bit company_id value assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority
>and a 40-bit extension identifier assigned by the organization with that
>company_id assignment."
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>I suggest that people become more aware of these issues.
>
>Jim Fleming
>
>http://www.unir.com
>
>P.S. Fortunately, IPv8 and IPv16 do not have this problem.
>http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
>http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
>http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
>
Received on Sunday, 18 July 1999 12:31:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.1 : Tuesday, 21 September 2004 12:14:15 GMT