Subject: [MOBILE-IP] TRACEROUTE.RE: [MOBILE-IP] Lack of User privacy - IS it a securit y problem ?

From: "Casati, Alessio (Alessio)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:26:53 +0100

> Matthew Ford wrote:
> | Can anyone be bothered to explain to me why an NAI like
> | [email-masked] is preferable to [email-masked]?
>
> There isn't a big difference between the two, and therein lies the
> potential problem.  If a user doesn't care about privacy (and many
> users may not), then using either is fine.  If a user does care about
> privacy, [email-masked] is not much better than [email-masked]
> if [email-masked] is also an unchanging identity whose activities over
> time can be linked.
>
> Perhaps the most serious privacy concern we need to guard against is a
> sensationalist headline along the lines 'IETF mobile-IP forces users
> to lose their privacy' (as some recent press coverage attempted w.r.t
> ipng stateless address autoconfiguration).  I agree that there may not
> be a burning need to develop privacy protecting mechanisms right now.
> It might be sufficient to just check that we don't require users to
> reveal more information than necessary.
>
If we a problem in having a FA
understanding/logging we are identified via

12TRKX23GHI@domain

then we could ask for daily
car registration plates to avoid an evil
organization can log a
database of cars (which fairly map to persons)
going through certain
locations where they've placed authomatic
registration plates recognition sytem.

By the way, since we are about non urgent things,
is traceroute something that may reveal an IP address of the
FA terminating the IP/IP tunnel used in MIP?

As pointed out by Telia during the 3GPP meeting last week
this may be something to be avoided.

Alessio