Well, the assumption seems to be that the desirability of a dynamically assigned IP is to prevent someone tracking you down!

I never for a moment had that in mind with my objections towards a static IP.

For IP 'hiding' I suppose there's always anonymous proxies, but like free news servers are quite hard to find anyway.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. But, not having anything to advertise, then a dynamically assigned IP is more appealing than a static IP.

Perhaps the analogy is having just one suit that you have to wear for the next umpteen years?

You've probably never experienced any aggressive p2p clients that hammer your IP all day long either long after you've 'closed' the connection have you?

At least cookies are deletable.

I don't know what bank billford uses, but having used Internet banking for several years now with several banks and credit card companies, I've never been asked for a static IP yet.

In reply to:

---

I don't know what bank billford uses, but having used Internet banking for several years now with several banks and credit card companies, I've never been asked for a static IP yet.

---

LloydsTSB.

And nor have I, but when I was having trouble connecting once, the tech mentioned that a static IP gave them less problems, and that some companies insisted on one.

That was a few years ago, things may have changed.

In reply to:

---

Perhaps the analogy is having just one suit that you have to wear for the next umpteen years?

---

An exceedingly poor analogy... a better one would be a name that you have for the rest of your life, doesn't cause much in the way of problems...

If real (static) names are so 'preferable', why are Internet forums and newsgroups full of people using pseudonyms?

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 16:52:40)

One can only assume they have something to hide.... or they name themselves after their role models

In reply to:

---

One can only assume they have something to hide.... or they name themselves after their role models

---

My point exactly!

I would bet that that assumption is what a lot of people would jump to also.

Congrats.

If you want a dynamic IP the assumption is that you must be hiding something?

Wrong!

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 17:01:51)

In reply to:

---

If you want a dynamic IP the assumption is that you must be hiding something?

Wrong!

---

Of course it's wrong.... as is the assumption that you are more vulnerable with a static IP.

It's a pity you missed the irony in my post...

Nobody apart from you actually did make an assumption about being more vulnerable with a static IP.

I alluded earlier to the fact that if someone was attacking your IP then being able to get assigned a fresh IP would be desirable in that situation.

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 17:15:02)

In reply to:

---

Nobody apart from you actually did make an assumption about being more vulnerable with a static IP

---

People that I've come across that dislike static IP's are usually people with false knowledge ie. some people think that by having the same IP, you'll leave yourself open to attack more so than having a dynamic IP.

If you have a fixed IP and someone attacks it, surely a dynamic IP would help in that situation? ...Personally, I prefer even a modicum of anonymity on the Internet

there is no doubt that dynamic IP is more anonymous than fixed IP.

You stick to your opinion, I'll stick to mine.

Yeah, missed LadFromWales's opinion, sorry.

Gari's quote and my second quote refer to anonymity not vulnerability. I never made the assertion that static IPs were more vulnerable.

As for irony, well MrBlobby is a roll model, hehe.

If you saw my physique then you would definitely appreciate the irony.

Edited by BlobbyBlobby (Thu 09-Nov-06 17:41:17)

In reply to:

---

refer to anonymity not vulnerability

---

Same thing, as far as I'm concerned. If you're not worried about being vulnerable to something, why would you feel the need to be anonymous?

But it would explain our differences of outlook...