Comment: Static or dynamic IP is vastly irrelevant for serious privacy

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

Static or dynamic IP is vastly irrelevant for serious privacy

If we're talking about serious privacy, static or dynamic IP is vastly irrelevant.

It will take barely more than a subpoena for a motivated "national security" (so-called) agency of the government to know about every single byte you've fetched, and from where, via your ISP or ISPs, over any given period of time. And that's if they're too lazy or cheap to send their boys and use more intrusive techniques to know ALSO WHAT YOU DID with the data, with which devices and from where.

Albeit it's unlikely the government reads all your emails real time, they're FOR SURE, ALREADY, storing EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM (and mine, of course) for later use:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM

Thus, being randomly picked from large dynamic IP ranges doesn't protect your privacy for the tiniest bit against paranoid and almighty government's lurking on you.

But they can't lurk on everybody all at the same time with the same significant effort. They need a "motive" or specific interest (either you or the law don't get to decide obviously: only their paranoia does).

All they need/wait for is to get interested enough in you and by which threats you'd pose them with this or that truth you'd have (insider knowledge or not), and if the latter is especially current to today's crises behind the veil.

Lately, critical banking and financial information to expose their crimes is likely more serious and watched by these leeches than anything weapon-related (unlike what they might pretend of course).

That'd be my bet, anyway.

Bear.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius