new internet protocol worries FBI

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

No, but various technical lists have been full of discussions on this the past few days.  
And certaily no one is suggesting banning them, but given the difficulty that Ipv6 has been having getting a market share, this is the sort of set back the evangelists probably didn't need.

However, given the prevailing perversity of the world, this may just be what is needed as the killer app for IPv6.

Happy Mid Summer

avri


DeeDee Halleck <deedeehalleck at gmail.com> wrote:

>I didn't say that they wanted to ban it-- it was the headline from RT
>which
>is *"**Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti” "*,  known as Russian TV now
>showing up in most Time Warner cable systems.
>MSNBC covered this story too.
>
>When i reposted it I said the FBI "worries".
>xx
>dd
>
>On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I think this is so very funny.
>>
>> I have been arguing, almost ranting, for years about what a bad idea
>IPv6
>> is from a technical viewpoint.
>> And here comes the FBI telling us it its dangerous because it allows
>too
>> much freedom
>> (though they put it differently - before any one accuses me of
>misquoting)
>>
>> Does this mean I have to start supporting it?
>>
>> It is so confusing these days.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> PS.  Happy mid summer
>>
>>
>> DeeDee Halleck <deedeehalleck at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >FBI wants to ban new Internet protocol
>> >Get short URL
><http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-internet-protocol-ipv6-212/>
>> >email story to a
>> >friend<
>>
>http://rt.com/emailstory/?doc_id=94212&type_doc=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2Fusa%2Fnews%2Ffbi-internet-protocol-ipv6-212%2F
>> >
>> >print
>>
>>version<http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-internet-protocol-ipv6-212/print/>
>> >
>> >Published: 19 June, 2012, 20:12
>> >[image: FBI wants to ban new Internet protocol]
>> >
>> >FBI wants to ban new Internet protocol
>> >
>> >*TAGS:* SciTech <http://rt.com/tags/scitech/>, Law
>> ><http://rt.com/tags/law/>
>> >, Internet <http://rt.com/tags/internet/>,Information
>> >Technology<http://rt.com/tags/information-technology/>
>> >, USA <http://rt.com/tags/usa/>
>> >
>> >With the recent unveiling of the newest Internet protocol system,
>> >trillions
>> >upon trillions of devices are being paved access to the Internet for
>> >the
>> >unforeseeable future. And right on cue, the FBI is already up in
>arms
>> >over
>> >IPv6.
>> >
>> >With computing devices around the globe already switching from the
>> >current
>> >Internet protocol system, IPv4, the US Federal Bureau of
>Investigation
>> >is
>> >predictably picking a fight with the biggest names in cyberspace to
>> >ensure
>> >that the FBI and other agencies across North America will be able to
>> >inch
>> >themselves into the personal Web surfing habits of citizens across
>the
>> >world. Now requests from the FBI to ready a system to easily snoop
>> >through
>> >Internet traffic has proponents of IPv6 and industry reps alike
>> >scrambling
>> >to make sense of the feds’ demands.
>> >
>> >Under the original and quickly antiquating Internet protocol system,
>> >IPv4,
>> >only 4.3 billion computers, modems, smart phones and other wired
>> >devices
>> >can send and receive information through cyberspace. When the latest
>> >rollover to IPv6 is complete, however, 340 undecillion addresses
>> >(that’s a
>> >lot<
>>
>https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=undecillion&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
>> >)
>> >will be able to be assigned. On the plus side, trillions of more
>> >devices
>> >will able to be delivered information over the Internet. The FBI,
>> >however,
>> >wants to make sure that they can still catch cyber criminals and
>> >suggest
>> >that they might have to insist that the private sector aids them in
>> >their
>> >future endeavors.
>> >
>> >According to report filed this week by Cnet’s Declan McCullagh, the
>> >FBI,
>> >Drug Enforcement Administration and Royal Canadian Mounted Police
>> >officials
>> >have jointly asked Internet representatives that traceability
>features
>> >be
>> >enabled with IPv6 that will allow federal agents to identify
>suspected
>> >cybercriminals with the same kind of ease evident with IPv4. Given
>that
>> >the
>> >government is already having trouble trying to find alleged
>> >cyberterrorists
>> >over the Internet as is, though, they might seriously have their
>work
>> >cut
>> >out for them. That’s where McCullagh reports, *“The FBI has even
>> >suggested
>> >that a new law may be necessary if the private sector doesn't do
>enough
>> >voluntarily.”*
>> >
>> >Speaking on condition of anonymity, an official with the FBI clues
>Cnet
>> >in
>> >on just why the agency is against the next-generation Internet
>> >protocol:
>> >
>> >*“An issue may also arise around the amount of registration
>information
>> >that is maintained by providers and the amount of historical logging
>> >that
>> >exists. Today there are complete registries of what IPv4 addresses
>are
>> >‘owned’ by an operator. Depending on how the IPv6 system is rolled
>out,
>> >that registry may or may not be sufficient for law enforcement to
>> >identify
>> >what device is accessing the Internet.”*
>> >
>> >If hunting for cybercriminals is comparable to searching for a
>needle
>> >in a
>> >haystack under IPv4, with IPv6 it will be on par with scouring the
>> >stratosphere for a single molecule of oxygen.
>> >
>> >John Curran of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>tells
>> >Cnet, "We're looking at a problem that's about to occur," and adds
>> >that,
>> >“as service providers start to roll out V6,” that’s exactly what
>> >they’ll
>> >receive. The answer, according to the FBI, might be a whole new set
>of
>> >legislation that will let them scour cyberspace for the answers for
>> >federal
>> >inquiries into alleged Internet crimes.
>> >
>> >*"We're hoping through all of this you can come up with some
>> >self-regulatory method in which you can do it,"* FBI supervisory
>> >special
>> >agent Bobby Flaim said at an ARIN meeting earlier this year, reports
>> >Cnet .
>> >*"Because otherwise, there will be other things that people are
>going
>> >to
>> >consider."*
>> >
>> >--
>> >http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org