Stulle, on 24 February 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:
So I read the reasoning on the IP ban and it is actually pretty ingenious. So what they say is you can actually store the IPs and if the IP was static you could retrieve it without any problem. You could even retrieve the dynamic IP if you could do it directly. But the problem is that the ISP needs to store more than one dynamic IP or connection. Going through these is what makes the whole thing break our constitution because that would violate the confidentiality of the communication. (see 116 in the verdict).
Basically, as I understand that part, they compare a static IP to a phone number which is assigned to a specific port, so when the authorities ask for the information about a phone number, they get the adress, name on which it's registered, or whatever they get. Dynamic IP they see however as part of the communication which is protected by the confidentiality of the communication.
Stulle, on 24 February 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:
In conclusion, forcing German ISPs to assign only static IPs (if this is possible in the boundaries of the constitution and I cannot see why it would not be without any in detail analysis) would allow German authorities to once again make retrieve names and addresses for IPs they found. Which is to say that the court did not rule that storing this kind of data is not possible under our constitution.
Yes, since in that case IPs would be like phone numbers.