[fc417fc802]

No, it doesn't. At least the last time I checked unless you go out of your way to implement a non-standard configuration IPv6 is a disaster for personal privacy for the typical multi-user household.

Then again, the "typical" multi-user household is likely logged in to most things via SSO with Google or Facebook and probably has approximately zero fingerprinting mitigations in use so perhaps it isn't worth worrying about?

If you aren't the typical household then given 2^64 addresses and a Linux box serving as a router you've got quite a few options available. Including various creative reinventions of NAT that don't break basic functionality.

[eythian]

> IPv6 is a disaster for personal privacy for the typical multi-user household

Why? With privacy extensions (which are normally enabled for user devices), then all someone can do is look at the prefix. This is identical to looking at the IPv4 address in a NAT setup, and it hasn't been that much of a privacy disaster.

As I see it, nothing is lost on that front.

[fc417fc802]

> This is identical to looking at the IPv4 address in a NAT setup

It is not identical unless the OS uses a new IP for every new outbound connection. I believe that would qualify as a (very) nonstandard configuration.

> it hasn't been that much of a privacy disaster.

Indeed, it was tongue in cheek which is why I went on to point out SSO. The reality is most people aren't willing to sacrifice convenience to retain even a shred of privacy.

If you are one of the few who care then you can implement one of the many possible non-standard solutions.

[Marsymars]

Even disregarding fingerprinting, a single household doesn't have enough traffic from separate devices/users to the same servers to really matter from a privacy standpoint.

If my PC uses the same IP as my partner's to talk to Google, it hardly matters for our privacy if they mix up the attribution of traffic between the two of us.

[fc417fc802]

Speak for yourself. I also don't want it to be readily apparent how many different devices I have, or when I'm using which one, or how many people are in the household, or when who is home.

Granted any service that I consistently interact with is likely to be able to figure out at least some of that information if they put in some effort. But I don't want to be freely providing a complete picture for zero effort.

Creepy data aggregator stories pop up on the HN front page regularly so hopefully I don't need to explain why I feel this way.

[Marsymars]

Yeah, I mean, I share those concerns in general, but my efforts are mostly centered around aggressive ad/tracker-blocking (moderate DNS-level blocking at the network level, more aggressive at the device level + browser-level blocking) and the avoidance of non-privacy-focused services, e.g. avoiding the popular social networks entirely, and using privacy-supporting pay-for services.

Using the same IP for all of my devices, for me, generally falls into the same bucket of anti-fingerprinting techniques that are used by the Tor Browser like letterboxed resolution that I don't find practical for general use. If I want to actually prevent fingerprinting by IP, resolution, etc. then I'll actually use the Tor Browser.