UK ISPs Consider VPN To Avoid Piracy Crackdown

Mark.JUK writes "Broadband internet providers in the UK are considering whether or not to follow the example of a Swedish ISP, Bahnhof, which recently put all of its customers behind a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) in order to circumvent new European Data Retention and Internet Copyright Infringement laws. By doing this, it makes their logs less useful to outside forces (e.g. rights holders) and allows customers to use the internet anonymously. However, several UK ISPs, including business provider AAISP (Andrews and Arnold), have suggested that there may be better solutions than sticking everybody behind a costly VPN. AAISP's boss, Adrian Kennard, claims, 'something ISPs will be doing anyway, carrier grade NAT, will create a similar anonymity as there is no requirement to log NAT sessions.' Meanwhile, Timico's CTO, Trefor Davies, warns, 'It would be a pretty costly project for all ISPs to implement such a system. It would also bring with it risks – suddenly it becomes a lot easier for governments to start monitoring all your traffic because it all goes through a single point (or at least a few points) on the network.'"

Comments

Interesting

[Haedrian]

So the public don't like the law because they can get ratted out.
The ISPs don't like the law either

Why is there this law again?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'see, it is a very simple one, the reason why pretty much any other law hated by everyone is around: money from media companies.

Re:Interesting

[cs02rm0]

Money.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Money from the media companies is the cause of speeding tickets and jaywalking fines? Care to explain?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Else the terrorists would have won.

Re:Interesting

[Gordonjcp]

We don't have "jaywalking" laws in the UK. The whole idea that you can be arrested for crossing the street in the wrong place is as laughable as it is Kafka-esque.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a law that is routinely broken with no social stigma, why is it a law?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is making the laws and controlling internet, media industry? Who gives them the right to decide about internet architecture.

Re:Interesting

[Eskarel]

There's a law because intellectual property is the only major export most Western nations still have. However unpopular this sort of thing is they're all far too afraid to risk losing that economic base, so they don't want to change the equation too much. Hence laws to preserve the status quo.

Re:Interesting

[FuckingNickName]

Well, sort of. See Highway Code rule 18. It is an offence to loiter on a crossing.

Which means you can potentially enjoy criminal sanctions for crossing where you should be crossing, but not for crossing where you shouldn't. And this, m'lud, is why I never cross at crossings.

(It's like those stupid pavement railings close to crossings. It just means you have to make the extra effort of jumping the railing or hugging the kerb on the road side until the railing ends, which is far more dangerous than if they weren't there.)

Re:Interesting

[TapeCutter]

"intellectual property is the only major export most Western nations still have" - That statement is in dire need of a citation.

Re:Interesting

[rrossman2]

The funny this to me is:

Sean Hannity (can't stand him, but listen sometimes on my way home from work just to get mad lol) had Joe Lieberman on and had they talked about this and that. Two days later Hannity has two foreign people on talking about what's going on in Egypt, with each person having different views. He then asked the one if the current President of Egypt (or whatever that position is called) is a Dictator, and kept hounding the point. After the lady wouldn't agree or say, Sean said something along the lines of "well look, he had the internet shut off, which makes him a dictator".

Well if that's true, then Lieberman is a dictator for having come up with the internet kill switch for the US, as well as anyone else who agreed on the bill.

It's funny how one action someone else is evil and "makes someone a dictator", yet the same or similar actions else where are just fine.

It really makes me sick

Re:Interesting

[turing_m]

In conditions not suited for it, excess speed carries increased risk of accidents and death in accidents, which is one of the reasons speed limits are imposed and also ostensibly why they are enforced. By contrast, infringements on music and movie copyrights don't generally kill or injure people. (Insert Battlefield Earth joke here.)

Re:Interesting

[causality]

In conditions not suited for it, excess speed carries increased risk of accidents and death in accidents, which is one of the reasons speed limits are imposed and also ostensibly why they are enforced.

Consider that "exceeding the speed limit" and "driving too fast for conditions" are two entirely separate violations (the second is much more severe). The latter really does make sense as a safety issue. The former is a revenue generator for the state that has nothing whatsoever to do with safety.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation?
You're just making a joke right? Just trollin to be a dick?

Have you not been paying attention for the last decade or what?

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

"intellectual property is the only major export most Western nations still have" - That statement is in dire need of a citation.

No, that's not how this works when you're not editing an encyclopedia. If a comment about a topic has piqued your interests, it is now up to you to research that topic. If you find information that contradicts someone else's position, let them know.

Re:Interesting

[Securityemo]

s/Most Western nations/The USA?/

Re:Interesting

[Urkki]

So the public don't like the law because they can get ratted out.
The ISPs don't like the law either

Why is there this law again?

The usual: too long time since the last total overhaul of the ruling class.

Re:Interesting

[TapeCutter]

"No, that's not how this works when you're not editing an encyclopedia."

Actually it is, it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, otherwise it's just a bald assertion. For example, if he claimed unicorns exist it's not up to me to disprove the claim since it is logically impossible for me to do so.

So let me be blunt, I call bullshit on the OP. I did some cursory research before my first post and found global revenues in the ten's of billions for movies, music and video games, clearly this is insuficient revenue to support the OP's claim. The OP is welcome to jump in any time and justify his bald assertion with some evidence.

Re:Interesting

[FuckingNickName]

So what you're saying is that, if some kid were to walk out into the road completely unexpectedly from behind a parked car, the fact that you were doing 40mph rather than 30mph wouldn't make it more likely that you kill them?

Lots of laws are preventative, like the one which stops you building an atom bomb in your back yard. Think of the car as the most dangerous weapon most people ever get to control.

Re:Interesting

[TapeCutter]

USA's top exports are civilan aircraft and military equipment.

Re:Interesting

[TapeCutter]

Yes a citation, show me that IP sales are the major export for ANY western country, let alone MOST of them. From what I can find the GLOBAL revenues from IP add up to about $100 billion, the US alone exports $1200 billion in goods and services.

Re:Interesting

[smallfries]

Which does seem odd from one point of view, but makes sense from another. In the US you have right of way if you step out in front of a car (possibly not in every state) and they must stop. So the Jaywalking laws are to stop you from abusing that power.

There are no Jaywalking laws in the UK, but if you step onto the road it is your responsibility not to get hit - it is not the responsibility of the car to stop. Of course if they are driving with due care and attention then they shouldn't run you over if they have enough warning, but that is a separate matter.

Crossings are a different kettle of fish: if you stop onto a crossing before a car gets there then it is their responsibility to stop. Doesn't matter about timing or speed. Because this gives you a huge power to stop all traffic on a road, section 18 can be broadly interpreted as "don't be a dick".

It may seem weird at first glance, but it is just a simple asymmetry in responsibility between pedestrian and driver.

Re:Interesting

[Securityemo]

Do you know where "IP" products list after those two? But I guess could be a matter of lobbying rather than actual export value?

Re:Interesting

[f3rret]

It is not technically against the law to build your own nuclear weapons; it, however, is against several international treaties.
Now I don't know if fissile material is considered a regulated substance, I suspect it might be.

Re:Interesting

[f3rret]

Actually it is, it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, otherwise it's just a bald assertion. For example, if he claimed unicorns exist it's not up to me to disprove the claim since it is logically impossible for me to do so. .

You mean unicorns don't exist? I've been grossly misinformed.

Re:Interesting

[symbolic]

Exactly - and you see Obama crowing about the rights of the Egyptian people, but then you wonder - what would happen if the same events were occurring here? I'm willing to bet that Obama would be singing an entirely different tune. Further, the initial intent of the "kill switch" was to mitigate damage in the wake of cyber warfare. However, just like everything else the federal government has done in the name of "national security" since 9/11, it *will* be re-purposed for other non-defense uses.

Re:Interesting

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Y'see, it is a very simple one, the reason why pretty much any other law hated by everyone is around: money from media companies.

Ah yes, how could we possibly forget: entertainment is the best, nay, only reason to give up civil liberties. Why if it weren't for those billions of relatively small payments we give to media companies, each representing that we only care a little about their content but we're happy to have SOMETHING, where would the economy be?

Re:Interesting

[cayenne8]

"Which does seem odd from one point of view, but makes sense from another. In the US you have right of way if you step out in front of a car (possibly not in every state) and they must stop. So the Jaywalking laws are to stop you from abusing that power."

Well, within reason. I mean, if you're driving down the road....no crossing zone there, and you're doing the speed limit, etc....if someone suddenly jumps out in front of you, and you hit and even kill them, you're not gonna get busted for that.

Re:Interesting

[jonbryce]

"IP" isn't on the list, as it isn't a physical product that goes through Customs.

Take Apple for example. They go down on the list as an importer of goods from China. However, the design of their products and the software that runs on them is carried out in the USA, and their products go from China to all over the world. That is a major IP export from the USA.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

well, that and grain.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be a reasonable period over which the rights of the creator lapsed and the content became public domain. Corporate interests recently succeeded in a significant increase of this period. Th e compromise between providing a reasonable incentive for creating anything original through protection of exclusive rights and the public interest has gone out of whack completely. Secret negotiations on ACTA are the ultimate proof in eliminating a due democratic process

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the Internet kill switch idea either, but I think there is a difference between Lieberman's bill and Egypt's action. For example, habeas corpus is one of the most important rights in a free society because it prevents the government from jailing people without cause. I'd say that a leader who constantly suspends habeas corpus for political reasons is a dictator. However, in our own (American) Constitution, the President can suspend habeas corpus in times of need. I don't think that such a limited act -- whether it be killing the internet or suspending habeas corpus -- automatically makes someone into a dictator if taken sparingly and only when most necessary. In the case of Lieberman, especially when all he did was propose the legal framework to make it possible in the future.

One of the more dangerous cases of intellectual dishonesty I can think of is to paint everything with a broad stroke. There are nuances in this world, and they do matter.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It is in dire need of citation but he and you made a comment not an encyclopedia article. Continuing. Do you think you can produce physical goods as cheap as in China or some developing country? You can only do it if it's high tech and again only because there are industrial secrets protected, otherwise it would be cheaper to outsource.
Even the skilled employees are trained in labs and with teachers know-how that is not readily exported everywhere. (Biological Research, nano tech, name it)

I do not support RIAA, but i do not treat digital media as free.Education is the key as in every problem of society

Re:Interesting

[causality]

So what you're saying is that, if some kid were to walk out into the road completely unexpectedly from behind a parked car

The first question I'd be asking in that scenario is: "where were his parents and why weren't they watching him?" That's if the kid is so young he can't yet be expected to understand that running out into traffic is a really bad idea. I know, it may sound crazy, but actually being a responsible parent, while difficult, is much easier than trying to control every possible vehicle that might pass through a given area. I know if I were a parent, I'd take responsibility for my children's safety and would not leave young children unattended near traffic and expect random strangers to always do the right thing. However nice that would be if they did, it just isn't realistic and all the wishing in the world won't change that.

Besides which, you can pull out all the edge cases you like. The fact is, most speeding tickets are not issued in residential areas where there are children and parked cars. Most are issued on highways that have speed limits of 55mph and above. In fact I don't believe I have ever once witnessed a cop parked in a 25mph residential area running radar.

Do you know why that might be? Well, I have a little theory. It's because most people don't drive crazy-fast though residential areas where children may be playing. Most people do exceed the highway speed limit at one time or another. The cops are running radar where they are most likely to score tickets, not where issuing tickets could do the most good to enhance safety. It's revenue generation, plain and simple. The cops' own priorities reveal this. What do you require, an official statement from the chief of police saying "we don't much care about your safety" before you'll realize that the way they behave reveals what is and isn't important to them? Personally, I ignore their words and I listen to their actions -- the communication is much more honest that way.

You might have personal issues with believing that your government can talk such a good game about safety while only really caring about taking your money, but I have no such qualms and have seen many examples of this. It's got nothing to do with whether I would like to believe it. It has to do with whether it fits the facts. For the record, I really don't like the idea that officials routinely lie to us, but my feelings about it have no bearing on whether it happens.

Re:Interesting

[brit74]

As an independent software developer, I work like crazy trying to create stuff that will sell. I don't really care for the excessively long copyrights, but the conclusion of your argument seems to be that copyright shouldn't exist at all and piracy should be legal. This would devastate us, which would in the long term harm you as well. I think every society with an enlightened self-interest would support copyright. Of course, there seem to be a lot of people looking out for their own short-term self-interest, which is what piracy is. The law exists because people are doing the latter rather than the former.

As for why the ISPs "don't like the law either", I'm sure they don't like the extra work of keeping track of this information. Plus, there's the *money* aspect to it. A handful of ISPs obviously see it in their interest to cater to a self-serving pirate if it means more customers (which means more money). From their point of view, as long as they get an extra $5 a month, who cares if someone else who should've gotten paid for their work takes a $100 loss. That strikes me as pretty selfish from the ISPs standpoint.

Re:Interesting

[T-Bone-T]

The funny thing to me is you think Lieberman is a dictator even though he has no power on his own. He can't force anyone to do anything.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the question is what part of most peoples money is going elsewhere? Most of my money goes to my bills. Things like communications (phone, internet, tv, etc), rent/mortgage, insurance (car, health, etc) , taxes (sales taxes/property taxes/income), and car payments. Communications is USA, rent/mortgage is USA, insurance is USA, and car payments is overseas. Now my discriminatory spending is largely food (eating out), entertainment (movies - theater), and computers. Only one of these is going outside the USA (computers). Most of the money though in tech doesn't leave the USA. The money is in services not physical product. This is why companies like Dell are undervalued. It isn't crumbling any time soon. It may need to go through some changes to become a more consumer focused company with physical locations to compete though with the likes of BestBuy, Staples, and others which offer services rather than be a hardware focused company as the prices come down or they will need to buy up the competition. Monopolies can easily exist and if HP/Dell merged you would have a significant competitive force with almost nowhere else to go. I can already count on my hand the number of companies left from past mergers in the tech industry with physical products. The remaining entities are essentially: Apple, Dell, and HP. You can throw in Lenovo too in smaller numbers at the high end for laptops. At some point you can force the prices up. Acer and some others exist in even smaller quantities.

Re:Interesting

[el3mentary]

"intellectual property is the only major export most Western nations still have" - That statement is in dire need of a citation.

No, that's not how this works when you're not editing an encyclopedia. If a comment about a topic has piqued your interests, it is now up to you to research that topic. If you find information that contradicts someone else's position, let them know.

Are you familiar with the concept of the burden of proof?

Re:Interesting

[Gordonjcp]

There are no Jaywalking laws in the UK, but if you step onto the road it is your responsibility not to get hit - it is not the responsibility of the car to stop.

No, pedestrians have the right of way. If you hit a pedestrian with your car, it's entirely your fault.

Re:Interesting

[smallfries]

[citation needed]

Not least because you are wrong - on a straight section of road without any crossing the car has right of way. There are specific exceptions (ie Section 108 in the highway code) for other situations. As for your claim that it is entirely the car drivers fault, take a look about halfway down here on the description of classifying accidents, and then later at the introduction of Home Zones.

Re:Interesting

[metaforest]

It won't be Obama that pulls the 'Internet Kill Switch'
That ship has not sailed yet... and I doubt very seriously it will sail on his watch, even if the man gets re-elected.
It will be some future tool that gets voted into the hot seat, and decides thing are bad-assed enough to make that call.
some future, elected asshat, that get the distinction of triggering a long over due civil war.

I'd bet money it won't come to that for another generation... eventually it will... as it must...
We've been too long without Jefferson's predicted 'blood cleasing' event.

Re:Interesting

[Eskarel]

Note that when I say intellectual property, I mean ideas.

The US exports no significant amount of raw materials, or manufactured goods aside from those which are heavily subsidized or banned from being produced overseas like grain and military equipment. Neither of these things produces much of a net bonus to the US economy because the amount of money that must be paid to keep those industries viable is so high. The same is true of most western nations. We don't make iPhones, nor do we produce the materials they are made from. The same is largely true of most manufacturing. Clothes, electronic goods, even cars are usually only assembled locally at best. Hell a lot of our food is imported and that's with heavy government subsidies.

We do however produce idea, which is what something like an iPhone actually is.

If people stopped buying US music, US movies, or US video games, there would be no noticeable impact on the economy, but if the Chinese factory which makes iPhones, and Intel chips, and everything else you use could take the designs for those items and produce identical copies and sell them in the west it would be a very different matter.

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are very important to our economies. They are what makes all the money we invest in education and higher living standards economically worthwhile. No US president, or UK prime minister, or German chancellor is going to risk upsetting that system too much with any kind of serious reform. Nor are they going to lapse in enforcement of that system, it is simply too important.

Re:Interesting

[badkarmadayaccount]

Software and entertainment need different licensing models, and with minimal (note: (!=0)) government interference. China style (I don't think even they go that far) tracking is not minimal in any way. The ISPs are doing the right thing in every sense of the word. People have a right to privacy. If the media cartels want to get rid of file sharing, then out-compete them. Flood the torrents with fakes, and low quality rips, burned in the video hungarian subtitles, you name it. The average user is not going to want to handle all that crap, and would rather pay up, and have a nice experience. Though at this point, legitimate media is about as obnoxious, and you have to pay for it. The torrents/etc. aren't all that bad at this point, and they are free. What else would you expect? But out-competing would mean getting rid of DRM (trust me, only a tiny percentage of people would even think of uploading their rips, and those who do think of it, aren't going to be stopped by it). Also, getting rid of that zoning crap, and the unskipable ads, and acknowledging fair use rights. But that would mean that they would have to downgrade to a silver toilet in their new yachts, instead of gold. Poor guys.

Re:Interesting

[MJMullinII]

So the public don't like the law because they can get ratted out.
The ISPs don't like the law either

Why is there this law again?

Because little children sometimes (surprise!) don't like to eat their vegetables.

I know it's "PC" to believe everything government does these days is aimed, solely, at "taking your toys away" but, believe it or not, there IS a reason why we are a society of laws and choose not to degenerate into a "Mad Max" like existence.

If you think the laws are wrong (or just stupid), then by all means, try and change the laws. But don't just sit on your ass and blame imaginary monsters ("guberment", conspiracies between "monied folk", etc.) for your ills.

Re:Interesting

[Xest]

I think the idea stems from the fact that although the car theoretically has the right of way, if a car hits a pedestrian and should have been able to stop in time then the driver will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.

This means that even if someone is hit by a car crossing in an area not designated as a crossing then the driver can still be prosecuted if they weren't paying attention, or if they were speeding, or if they were simply being stubborn refusing to stop and so on.

So like you say it's not as if there's a law saying pedestrians have right of way, simply that motorists must allow pedestrians to cross if the pedestrian leaves you little choice and if you can stop.

I know the link you provide suggests that this doesn't happen but I can assure you it certainly does, as one of my friends was being an idiot once and decided not to slow down to scare a kid who decided to cross right in front of him into running out the way, which he unfortunately did not do, presumably guessing my friend would slow down, which he also did not do. It effectively was a game of chicken where they both lost. Still, he was only going 20 and the kid got a broken arm but was fine other than that. My friend however was charged with careless driving and was eventually given 6 points.

I think the law as it is is quite sensible though, it effectively means common sense is required from both sides- it means motorists shouldn't risk hitting pedestrians even if the pedestrians are being stupid, and it means pedestrians shouldn't be stupid- certainly they'd have little recourse if they got hit trying to cross a dual carriageway where cars are travelling 70mph and may certainly not have time to miss them.

Re:Interesting

[smallfries]

An interesting way of looking at it. In a situation where deaths are only avoided by both sides being sensible it makes sense to leave some ambiguity in the definition of who is in the right. If, as you point out, it makes both sides exercise some caution then it seems like a win:win.

Any side effects of NAT?

[TubeSteak]

I'm not all that familiar with the nitty gritty details of NAT.
Would a site like /. rate limit posts coming from multiple users behind a NAT?

IIRC, one spammer behind a NAT can get everyone else blacklisted.
Talk about havoc for that ISP's customers.

A VPN sounds like the smarter of the two ideas.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

NAT does not necessarily mean that there is a one to many mapping. one to one mapping is not unheard of for NATed networks. (For example I have seen that used for GPRS connections.)
NAT is just a network address translation, you rewrite the address in the packet to a new one.
There are problems with it. If a protocol requires that the IP address is sent within the payload then the device that performs the translation will have to understand that protocol.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Haedrian]

NAT is already done by certain ISPs who don't have enough addresses for all their customers. If you (say) map 2 people onto the same IP address you can pay for less addresses.

If you map a bunch of people to the same address every session, and you don't store the routing table, I think you can safely call it 'anonymous' - because you're introducing uncertainty.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[TheLink]

They might also be considering NAT to delay moving to IPv6.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Arancaytar]

The side effects of a NAT (not all NATs, but the IP masqerading one which has become synonymous with it) are that you lose the ability to accept incoming traffic. Pretty much all Peer-to-peer protocols depend on that in some measure.

Some can cope (I believe Skype has some server-based way of negotiating a direct connection between two firewalled computers, though I don't know the details), while others like BitTorrent keep some limited functionality (you're limited to connections you initiate), and still others (tor, probably - as a node, not a client) will stop working entirely.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[dadioflex]

I might have dreamed this, but I thought ipv6 doesn't use NAT so it would be a short-term solution at best.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

IPv4 doesn't support NAT either. NAT is something that you can do to IPv4 packets and, if you write the software, to IPv6 packets too. There is some contention on the topic of "standardizing" NAT. The people in favor argue that standardized NAT allows application developers to write their protocols with one clearly specified form of NAT in mind. The objection is that standardizing NAT legitimizes the use of NAT, which is undesirable on an end-to-end internet.

On the topic of using VPNs to avoid anti-piracy crackdowns: The VPN provider would have to be outside of the jurisdiction which compels ISPs to identify their users, or the VPN operator would themselves be compelled to identify the users. If there's a legal loophole where they don't have to now, that loophole will soon be closed. The media companies are lobbying full force to fend of their certain demise.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, if you're behind NAT, you're on a LAN with a gateway (/gatekeeper) to the internet, **NOT** actually on the internet. Selling you this as "internet" is false advertising. Not that false advertising has ever stopped ISPs, with their "unlimited" broadband.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[SuricouRaven]

With Skype, the two endpoints both negociate with the server to agree on a UDP port - then send to each other via UDP. They are basically tricking the NAT routers at each into thinking the other end accepted a UDP connection. It works surprisingly well.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[SuricouRaven]

IPv4 wasn't designed to use NAT at all. NAT is an improvised technique that allowed IPv4 to continue to grow far beyond it's original design specifications. Networking professionals do not like it, because it breaks a lot of protocols, but it's the only way the internet can continue to function right now. The alternative is IPv6, but that is a very expensive thing to deploy and would bring many troubles of it's own during the transition period. So the options are to either continue deploying NAT, which is cheap and reliable at the expense of breaking a lot of protocols and crippling the internet in future, or deploying IPv6 which will produce a far superior internet in five years but in the meantime result in customers asking why things arn't working properly. There isn't a business case for IPv6, because the RoI period is so long - the IPv4 internet isn't going to collapse just yet, though it will inevitably happen one day.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[zach_the_lizard]

NAT 64 is one possible transition mechanism to ipv6 when combined with DNS 64. Of course, they probably are doing what you say.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Amarantine]

Basically, if you're behind NAT, you're on a LAN with a gateway (/gatekeeper) to the internet, **NOT** actually on the internet.

There is no difference between public and private addresses technically, it's just an agreement that we are allowed to use 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x and 172.16.x.x inside our own networks and don't route these ranges to the outside. Even if you have a public address from your provider, you still have a gateway.

Selling you this as "internet" is false advertising. Not that false advertising has ever stopped ISPs, with their "unlimited" broadband.

My provider sells "access to Internet", not "Internet".

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[MightyMartian]

Pretty much all P2P protocols don't do this anyways. There are a few older ones; IRC and FTP come to mind, that do this, but even very low-end NAT routers can fix that as well. As to the single point argument, well, most ISPs only have a few such points anyways and I'm sure governments can find excuses to monitor them, whether the gateways open up on to public or private IP spaces.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Skype uses a middlebox in between both firewalls to accept connections on behalf of each other. In other words, I can't contact you directly because of your firewall and you can't contact me because of mine. But if we both connect with the Skype server, Skype can route things between us.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[gnapster]

It occurs to me that the first time an Internet kill switch is used would be a most-suitable flag day for the transition to IPv6.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[PremiumCarrion]

That's one way, I've not personally investigated this but I've been told that Skype also uses UDP to punch through the firewall... since it is a connectionless protocol many home firewalls can't really tell if the "connection is open or closed" as with normal TCP traffic.

So each of the client blindly send a UDP packet to each other as negotiated by the skype server.

Client A's firewall sees UDP traffic going out from Client A Port 1 to Client B Port 2
Client A's firewall says "aha this must be some kind of connection I can't monitor the status of, so I will allow traffic back"

Client B doesn't receive the packet because its firewall thinks this is some junk.
Client B then sends a packet from Port 2 to Client A Port 1.

Both firewalls now believe there is legitimate traffic between the two, despite the fact their both firewalled and/or NATed as may be appropriate.

Re:Any side effects of NAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not all that familiar with the nitty gritty details of NAT.
Would a site like /. rate limit posts coming from multiple users behind a NAT?

IIRC, one spammer behind a NAT can get everyone else blacklisted.
Talk about havoc for that ISP's customers.

A VPN sounds like the smarter of the two ideas.

So all I have to do is get /klined /glined off IRC. AWESOME

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why do people worry

[gmthor]

Why do people worry about wire trapping?

I've got nothing to hide. \end{cynical}

Re:Why do people worry

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose all comments going forward similar to the one above be proceeded by all that persons user names and passwords for all online activity.

Re:Why do people worry

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do people worry about wire trapping?

I've got nothing to hide."

Because, unlike you, they're aware of history and basic civil rights principles.

Re:Why do people worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy == concealment, this if you believe and use privacy on any level one can't logically have nothing to hide. [P ^ ~P = F, not T]

Re:Why do people worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people worry about wire trapping?

I've got nothing to hide. \end{cynical}

Why, it's called the right to privacy. Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

I have nothing to hide, I also don't want people in my business either.

Re:Why do people worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Because animals caught in wire traps can suffer and starve for days.

Re:Why do people worry

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you should be hiding that you use LaTeX. What is this, 1982?

Happens Already?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a pretty costly project for all ISPs to implement such a system. It would also bring with it risks – suddenly it becomes a lot easier for governments to start monitoring all your traffic because it all goes through a single point (or at least a few points) on the network

Because that doesn't already happen on the major trunks anyway?

Why workarounds ?

[cdp0]

Instead of searching for technical workarounds, we should try to block such laws. Workarounds are just that, and sooner or later the law will workaround workarounds.

What will happen if encryption will become illegal for the general public ? Today this might seem far-fetched, but we are slowly giving in, and it might be a tad too late when we'll realize what we lost (and I'm not talking about the regular /. guy, but about the general public).

Re:Why workarounds ?

[Haedrian]

The people who want these laws are the kind of people who have enough money and influence to ensure that these laws stay the same way.

I mean, you saw the whole Net Neutrality debate in the US. It had misdirection on one side which triggered the American Native "I DON'T WANT NO GUBBERMENT" reaction.

When we're talking about media - you can expect to see commercials detailing how 'favourite artist' supports this law because it protects their music, how the world would be horrible without them. Then you have government lobbying (also known as bribes) and stuff like that.

If we had an infinite pool of politicians, enough floating voters and a way of determining who supports these crap laws, you'd see the world change pretty quickly. Not the case either.

At least you can rest on the fact that laws usually take ages to fix. So this 'workaround' is great until they patch the law up in a few years' time.

Re:Why workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of searching for technical workarounds, we should try to block such laws.

Which is what many people have tried to do with lobbying and public rally calls, etc. As far as I remember a couple of ISPs have even gone to the lengths of getting a Judicial review of portions of the Digital Economy Act. Unfortunately, half the reason that act got through in the first place was because it wasn't scrutinised enough in parliament and if that's a problem in the first place then trying to block laws will probably go the same way: for whatever reason, due to excessive lobbying on one side, being a little too close to special interest groups or just plain not caring, alterations to the law intended to be reasonable and for the benefit of the average person just don't seem to happen every time they should.

Re:Why workarounds ?

[zippthorne]

I mean, you saw the whole Net Neutrality debate in the US. It had misdirection on one side which triggered the American Native "I DON'T WANT NO GUBBERMENT" reaction.

The problem was the other side of it, that was salivating over all the possibilities to insert more government control into the legislation for net neutrality. You weren't ever going to get real net neutrality, you were going to get something like it, plus a whole lot of political meddling.

Re:Why workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the bill proposed by the "other" side? Where is the political meddling?

http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/012511_Net_Neutrality_bill_text.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/senators-bash-telecom-oligarchs-drop-strict-net-neutrality-bill.ars

Re:Why workarounds ?

[SanityInAnarchy]

So this 'workaround' is great until they patch the law up in a few years' time.

At which point, we're stuck with NAT and all its disadvantages, rather than a far superior IPv6 option, because the technically inferior version happened to be more convenient legally until the law was fixed.

Re:Why workarounds ?

[badkarmadayaccount]

The IPv6 migration path goes through NAT any way...

Safe for how long?

[AHuxley]

""suspected" unlawful file sharing p2p activity from publicly available IP details; a feat that is already extremely unreliable."
"as there is no requirement to log NAT sessions"?
1. Log data as file is shared, downloaded.
2. Get legal advice in the UK.
2.5. Another private dinner with members of the Rothschild banking dynasty at the family's holiday villa on ....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/25/file-sharing-internet
3. A UK court asks "happy joy isp will not log NAT sessions.co.uk" about downloaded data.
4. You face an "amnesty" letter to pay a "low" amount or risk facing a court?
The good part is your exchange?/small one road town has its ip hidden from all users.

Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[hardtofindanick]

Entire corporations are now being run purely on the Internet. It is not ok to break the law and not be held responsible for it.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[Chaonici]

I don't understand how you got from point A to point B in your post. Are you saying that because the Internet is quite important nowadays, we need to screw it up with overzealous copyright enforcement?

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not confuse law with morals.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states;
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, famil, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

The wiretapping law is obviously immoral.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[GCsoftware]

Oooh, entire corporations. Well, I better give up all my rights then!

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you forget this part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Article 29

      1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
      2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
      3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

In other words, once you get your hoped for one-world government, your rights may just disappear in a flash if politicians decide the "collective's" rights are more important than yours. Enjoy!

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[FourthAge]

Not just some "one-world government". Any government.

Human rights declarations always have a term in them that says "the government can suspend this when it wants to". For example, the ECHR's article 2 prohibits the death penalty, but provides an exception for "action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

But then, this is probably for the best, because as citizens, subjects or (more accurately) peasants, we have basically no power to oppose the government at all. The idea that some magical charter or declaration has granted us "rights" that save us from tyranny is laughable, a fool's hope for the gullible. The laws are always made by those who can enforce them, and we should always remember this. The ECHR does a great service by putting it in writing.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[FourthAge]

Indeed, it's important not to confuse law and morals. But piracy advocates do this all the time. For instance, on OS News, Thom Holwerda cannot resist mentioning that "downloading is perfectly legal in The Netherlands and many other European countries", a matter he has mentioned before. He says this as the ultimate answer to any question about whether piracy is right or wrong. But heating on your wife is also legal in The Netherlands, and that doesn't make it right.

Also, the view that file sharing is moral, and attempts to stop it are immoral, are actually quite contentious. I refer you to Slashdot user "Cliffski", an independent game designer whose games have been widely pirated, because he has the opposite view. To him, sharing without permission is immoral, along with the attitude that excuses and permits it. I find it difficult not to see his point.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[h4rm0ny]

Slashdot is something of an echo chamber. There's an entire world out there that isn't filled with people trying to proclaim piracy a moral action, but the group think in this place is extraordinary. You see similar things in articles about Microsoft.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[Spad]

Tell that to the entire corporations.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

So because they were stupid enough to base their entire existence on a public network we should suffer? Fuck em.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[zach_the_lizard]

It depends on the government. The nuclear armed ones, assuming they have the will to nuke their own citizens, can probably never be opposed. As for the others, the possibility of defeating the government is there, given a large enough percentage of the population in revolt, but it wouldn't be very pleasant.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[FourthAge]

True; but that's actually a different case of the same rule: if the citizens form a mob that is sufficiently powerful that it can make the laws, then it becomes the government. It is tough for citizens to become more powerful than professional soldiers with real weapons - but the military might join the rebellion...

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, on OS News, Thom Holwerda cannot resist mentioning that "downloading is perfectly legal in The Netherlands and many other European countries", a matter he has mentioned before. He says this as the ultimate answer to any question about whether piracy is right or wrong.

Really? That's what you took away from that article? I guess when I read your post all I see is someone looking to over-simplify the debate in order to rationalize their own "morals" which are really just a form of gussied up bias.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[David Rolfe]

So, I never noticed that you replied to me many months ago. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1737958&cid=33093686 You didn't take my point, so I must have been communicating badly, but I'm still interested in the question I posed, the one I asked you to address. You said:

[...] I want to take notes on it with a stylus, [...] to be able stuff a USB stick in the side of it and put directories of data on it, not sync it to a [...] program running on an entirely separate computer [...]. The iPad is pricey [...] Bring on the rivals, I say.

And then I said:

Address the argument: Are you willing to pay more money than the cost of an iPad for a device that is bigger, has worse battery life, runs windows and lets you manage your own synchronization?[...] The truth is, those devices have existed since the ThinkPad and still exist [...]

See, what I was getting at is: your demands have already been met (and were met first 20 years ago, and HP and the like are still making Windows tablets, or were before better tablets gutted their segment), but you aren't complaining in the context of a device that you already own that meets those demands (they exist, you might have one, I've had several, but they could be improved), you are complaining about a device you don't own, appear to have no intention of buying, and doesn't prevent you from owning any other competitor's device. In fact, you go on to argue largely about quiche eating tone-troll bullshit and not the fact that Windows running, stylus using, expansion socketted tablet PCs have existed for ages and are still available right now. My point in asking "Are you willing to pay more money than the cost of an iPad for a device that is bigger, has worse battery life, runs windows and lets you manage your own synchronization?" is that you can have a Windows running, stylus using, expansion socketted tablet PC right now, but it might cost more than an iPad, it might be bigger than an iPad, and it might have worse battery life than an iPad. Those generally are 'trade-offs', but ones you might be willing to make. I asked because if you are willing to make those trade-offs then you don't need to complain about how it's "about fucking time" or any such nonsense (sorry when I said whinging, I wasn't trying to elicit more tone-trolling), the market is already providing your specifically requested features! Or I guess you could have simply answered 'no' to my question and further said, "I want all the features of the iPad, the cost of the iPad, and I want these other ones, too!" In that case, I guess you're right; that device doesn't exist yet, but Microsoft isn't going to invent it and sell it (not while Ballmer is still there anyhow).

The Galaxy Tab can use a stylus, but I haven't used it personally. Maybe it takes USB, maybe it's cheap, maybe it's big enough (or small enough), maybe it lasts long enough.

All of which is a long way of asking, has the market not met your short list of needs, or has the market not met your needs at your price?

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[h4rm0ny]

Wow!. You've gone back to a thread over six months old to respond to a post I've made. And committed thread bleed to do so. I think it's generally bad form to start following arguments from article to article because it makes a mess for those who want to follow a discussion and it is almost always used in a negative way for bearing grudges and not letting things drop (as here). The old story is locked to replies seeing as it really is quite old, but you could have sent me a message as I doubt people in a discussion of UK ISPs really want to see a thread-bleeding discussion of the iPad bouncing around from story to story. If you're going to link to old discussions, at least have the decency to link to the beginning of the discussion so that people can get a proper take on it. Having just gone back and read the posts, I can't see anything in what you just wrote that isn't actually either covered or wasn't something I was talking about. Well except for a lot of new statements about how I am "complaining" and "tone trolling".

I had to look up "tone trolling" and it's apparently someone who demands civility in discourse. You are mistaken - I wasn't highlighting how you used the word whinging in your argument, I was highlighting that it was the sum total of your argument. Honestly, if someone clearly and calmly explains what they require from a hardware device, you can argue what is good or bad about those requirements. But saying they are "whinging" is not a refutation.

If someone wants to mod this whole mess off-topic, I'll accept the karma hit as fair, but please get Mr. "I obsesses about discussions six months ago" down too.

In short, I'm not going to re-open this discussion and particularly not when most of what you say is nothing that wasn't answered, but just angry and sarcastic repetition. And quite honestly, that you're still wound up about something that long ago (where I was incidentally a great deal politer throughout than you were), is downright disturbing.

Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore

[David Rolfe]

You misunderstand, still, I guess. I'm not wound up or anything of the sort, it's simply I haven't checked in at Slashdot in all these months, and was just picking up where I'd left off, with your reply. (I'm fine to drop it though!)

As far as thread bleed goes -- that's hardly a concern is it? For a sub-thread marked troll at the start and our exchange 5 levels deep, I imagine it's not. Your concern it noted.

Cheers!

The outcome is predictable.

[SuricouRaven]

If any major ISP does this, then next legislative session some politician will just propose a law to make it illegal, on the grounds that it makes it impossible to track down pedophiles. The bill will pass on a unaminous vote with support from all parties, because no politician wants to be seen defending said pedophiles.

Hmm... carrier-level NAT would also make tracking people online next to impossible. Could we have finally found something that will convince non-technical types of the need to move to IPv6? 'Deploy the new protocol, or the evil pedos will never be caught?'

Also, two-tier internet

[Arancaytar]

With a simple DSL access, possibly using a push-based dynamic DNS service, you can become a server right now. You can even serve out of a local NAT by forwarding a few ports in your router. Without renting a server, you can host a small website, provide an FTP share, seed a torrent, and host a tor node. Particularly in the last case, many small users with their own computers are what tor thrives on.

If your computer has to share its global address with hundreds behind a NAT at the ISP level, this becomes basically impossible (just try asking your ISP to forward a port for you!). The internet will be split into two halves made up by the content providers who can afford a globally accessible address, and the content consumers who sit behind a glorified television.

Re:Also, two-tier internet

[swb]

The problem being that the ISPs realize that even with public addresses, most (an overwhelming majority?) of their customers are just that -- "content consumers who sit behind a glorified television."

Re:Also, two-tier internet

[SuricouRaven]

Those customers will still be very annoyed when their IM file transfer services stop working. Though I imagine if it becomes a significent problem, The major IM network operators will revise their protocols in some way - maybe mutual UDP connections like Skype uses.

Re:Also, two-tier internet

[dnaumov]

Those customers will still be very annoyed when their IM file transfer services stop working.

What's IM? The current generation of youngsters has no idea of such a concept. To them, IM = Facebook and Twitter.

Re:Also, two-tier internet

[zach_the_lizard]

Facebook has an IM service built in. No file transfer, but IM nonetheless.

Anonymity or ISPs running out of addresses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully ISPs will migrate fully to IPv6 and address allocation won't be a problem.

Then I can imagine ISPs offering to put you behind a NAT router for anonymity for an additional fee.

Doesn't matter...

[Joce640k]

Next year there'll be a new law requiring logging of NAT sessions.

The RIAA already knows who to bribe so the next round of laws will go through quickly.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[MightyMartian]

I'm sure any log retentions rules would apply. The problem for anti-piracy investigators is that about all you can tell by sniffing the packets is that pirating is being done behind the NAT router. If that ISP has, say, 500,000 users, the investigators can't tell which ones are pirating, and the logs would become considerably less useful. There might be key indicators, like number of bytes downloaded in a given period, if the logs have that kind of detail, that might point to specific users, but I'll wager in most jurisdictions it would be considerably harder to get a warrant where the smoking guns have that little smoke.

Re:The outcome is predictable.

[Anonymous Coward]

A significant chunk of mobile data services do this already in the UK and there's an exemption for it in DEA.

question about summary

[PopeRatzo]

I notice the summary mentions a VPN being "expensive".

What makes a VPN expensive?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I really don't know the answer.

Re:question about summary

[rrossman2]

It increases server load, with each connection being encrypted. If you look at say DD-WRT on a linksys router, the thru put drops a lot when using VPN with encryption. To combat this, you can use a dedicated VPN point, say one made by Cisco, but they aren't cheap and IIRC there's a license limit to the # of VPN connections you can provide. (I may be wrong on the license part though). I know Penn State uses it for people who want to connect from home and for access over certain WiFi networks on campus. That all was setup before I started in the department I'm in, so I have no clue the cost to set it up and maintain it, plus it's managed by Central IT and not within the department I'm in.

Re:question about summary

[Casandro]

It's no problem for you at home, as your small router surely can cope with a few megabits of data. However on the ISP side you will suddenly have multiple gigabits of encrypted data you need to decrypt. You need fast and therefore expensive computers for that.

NA(P)T is no solution

[Casandro]

Once NA(P)T is in place, ISPs will surely be forced to log it. Even if they aren't forced to do so, the data visible to them via NA(P)T is just far to valuable for them to be left unused.
Essentially when they implement NA(P)T they will have to keep track of all your current TCP connections. It's only a small step to log those and will give you far more detailed information than just the IP-Address the user used to have at any given time.

Furthermore NA(P)T breaks most services like VoIP, FTP or E-Mail. Without the possibility for incoming connections those services wouldn't work properly.

Re:NA(P)T is no solution

[Imagix]

Furthermore NA(P)T breaks most services like VoIP, FTP or E-Mail. Without the possibility for incoming connections those services wouldn't work properly.

Um, the NAT problem for FTP got solved a while ago with passive transfers and SPI firewalls. Even less of an issue for email. And also not a problem for certain types of VoIP. The clearer answer is that NA(P)T messes up stuff that requires an inbound connection. Stuff such as SIP-based VoIP the way it was meant to be (where the SIP endpoints talk to each other directly, not with some phone switch-like thing between them). Trying to run one's own email gateway. Trying to put up a VPN gateway into your own network. That sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, I think NA(P)T is a bad thing and the ISPs should all get off their collective posteriors and deploy IPv6 already. Everybody gets a /56 to the home. Everything could have a unique IPv6 address. Yes, that is still trackable.

Re:NA(P)T is no solution

[Casandro]

Well I'm sorry, but passive transfers just kills all the advantages of FTP like load balancing. In real FTP you can have the files on different servers than the indexes making it able to scale into areas HTTP has problems with. Essentially you can have a control server which only has the meta information of the files. When you want to get a file, it can be provided by a different server. That way the control server can choose a server closest to you or you can have large quantities of data split across multiple servers.

Re:NA(P)T is no solution

[badkarmadayaccount]

Ever heard of reverse proxies. Hell, set up a shared IP to all severs, and linking (physical) sites with IP tunels, and then setting up port 80 as trigger port only, randomly redirecting to the assigned high port for a given nodes' httpd instance - IOW NAT load balancing. With UPnP control to direct server specific requests when the can not be serviced directly.

one huge NAT

[gbjbaanb]

a NAT per ISP instead of per user.... well, I suppose something has to be done about the imminent shortage of IPv4 addresses :)

Spam haven

[Dachannien]

Sending all your users through a single point of transmission, and thereby making all your users look as though they have the same IP address, makes your ISP a haven for spammers.

If you have enough legitimate users behind your single IP, forum/blog/game/whatever admins will be reluctant to block that IP, since they'd be blocking a lot of real potential users as well. Reporting spammers to you becomes more difficult as well, since all their reports will list that single IP, and neither they nor you will have any means for determining which of your customers was actually spamming.

The result is that spammers will be able to use your ISP with relative impunity.

IPv6

[Natales]

Or they could implement IPv6 using anonymous address interface identifiers as described in RFC 3041 to provide an increased level of anonymity.

In addition to that, IPSec encryption is a standard part of the protocol, so just by implementing it you get instant security. Older OSs could use a 4to6 interface that wouldn't break older apps that have not yet been updated to support the protocol.

IPv6 is much closer to be a reality now than ever before. It's about time that some ISPs start taking the lead on this instead of going the VPN or NAT route. It will happen any way and they could get some good PR out of it while addressing the issue they are trying to solve.

Re:IPv6

[Rising Ape]

The privacy extensions wouldn't provide any more privacy than you typically now get with IPv4. In IPv4, you typically get a /32 which identifies you - in IPv6, you'll get a /64, /56 or whatever. The privacy extensions only affect the last 64 bits - you can still be identified by the prefix that you were given by your ISP.

Re:IPv6

[Kakari]

Your modem perhaps, but won't each person behind the modem have a random set of trailing bits? Including that guy who's using your open wireless network to do 'bad' things?

Re:I'd pay about $5 extra

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using VPNs like Relakks & SwissVPN to hide my downloads for about 4 years now. It works great.

No!

[Nemyst]

Doing this will break so many things... On top of making people unable to be hosts (FTP, SSH, etc.) or to participate in certain P2P activities, it would also make it just about impossible to block offending users from websites. What exactly can you do about an idiot DoS'ing your site when his IP is shared by thousands?

Re:The outcome is predictable.

[MightyMartian]

Banning NAT and VPN would take down a huge amount of the infrastructure out there. NAT routers, from cheapo consumer-grade hardware right up to some pretty expensive equipment, is installed all over the place, and various forms of VPN are very prevalent in the corporate world.

What they might require is far greater detail in logging; packet types, translation tables, but man oh man, I cannot imagine the amount of storage you would need if you were a large ISP with hundreds of thousands or millions of customers. Imagine all those mobile and wireless data providers, most of which run behind NAT, having to store this kind of data.

Tor

[Khopesh]

You had the answer in your examples of what can be done on a simple DSL connection; Tor facilitates this exactly. Users can't be traced if users are required to use tor, with any configuration of exit nodes (all customers, some customers, ISP-level, third-party). If all customers are required to use tor as exit nodes, traffic bounces around the network and jumps out anywhere, perhaps not even in the same ISP. There would be no way to know where traffic comes from (with respect to IP addresses, anyway), so the logs would be useless.

As to requiring NAT or IPv6, that doesn't matter as much as long as tor were a requirement. Adding tor to a properly-run non-NAT'd system would allow technical users to run servers without issues (the servers wouldn't need to use tor, though this would result in logs). Perhaps if ISPs using tor becomes a common thing, hosting .onion sites wouldn't be that problematic (they are already available outside tor through proxies like tor2web).

Re:Tor

[badkarmadayaccount]

Symmetric NAT with UPnP would also enable severs (the ISP routers have to be set up to do reverse NAT based on SRV records, but that's not a big deal. And combined with Tor, and say DNSCurve, CERT records for SSL Auth, and IPSec crypto would make the logs look... intersting, to say the least.

Re:The outcome is predictable.

[SuricouRaven]

I doubt it'd be a ban. It'd just impose extremally extensive logging requirements. Not by refering to technology, but just requireing all ISPs have the ability to uniquely identify any user given a time and IP address. How the ISPs go about doing that is their problem. It could be done for NAT at some expense, but for PAT it'd be completly impractical - it'd just leave the ISPs with no choice but to not use PAT, even if that means finally moving to IPv6.

DO NOT WANT

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't work with a NAT like Linux NAT. Why? Because outgoing connections are mapped on port *and* destination. If both sides are behind same type of NAT, it is impossible to connect the two together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation#Types_of_NAT

Most NAT is symmetric, at least by default. Remember when Skype stopped working and all hell broke lose? The cause was NAT. Without NAT, supernodes (skype servers) would not be necessary and Skype would have continued to function.

Anyway, of course ISPs would *love* to put everyone behind NAT. They would claim it is for our own good and illiterate people will believe that. But then all peer-to-peer communication does NOT work anymore. Skype would be basically dead, at least direct connections. SIP does not work at all - so no competition to $1/min long distance. You want send some 1kB text file to someone via IRC? Well, you are SOL (so out of luck).

If you believe that massive centralization of power is good for you, then you are most likely for NAT "protecting you". If you know history, you realize that this is not a solution, even if you are technically-challenged.

I've installed IPv6 and I can't be happier. Direct connections work. I can have sane firewall setup. It's like the internet that should be. And if you think that someone can't track you because of NAT, you've got to be kidding yourself. As soon as carrier grade NAT is rolled out, ALL connections will be logged. And you are tracked via google/facebook/website cookies/flash/etc... all the time anyway. Even here, my "anonymous coward" status is anything but.

Re:DO NOT WANT

[badkarmadayaccount]

A well set up symmetric NAT, with UPnP, and SRV record support on the application layer would create no such issues. Now go and implemented it for fucks sake. A NAT router is another name for high performance anonymizing proxy.

Re:The outcome is predictable.

[jonbryce]

All of the cellphone networks in the UK do it. There are 80m cellphone connections for a population of 62m, and there is no way they could get enough IP addresses to go round.

Is this why Bahnhof is the point of failure?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you try connecting to several well-known torrent trackers inside Sweden from the US via TCP, the connection will time out if routed through bahnhof.

If you use UDP instead, you won't have that problem. UDP has been becoming more popular with trackers due to the decreased overhead, but this seems to be a side benefit.

Spitting onto ground...

[antdude]

... How about spitting to the ground in Singapore? :(

Neither can Pres of Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither can Pres of Egypt. Or do you think he personally goes around arresting people? That he personally is switching off the internet?

So you're fine with Wikileaks completely?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're fine with Wikileaks completely? After all the government of a democracy has nothing to illegal to hide, yes?