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 <[log in to unmask]> 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