Not everyone is nice. Some people's ideal for the Internet is not my ideal for the Internet. I don't have to agree with everyone, and I don't think infinite protections should be granted to people like that at great cost to everyone else.
> Giving up on the future of the Internet in a futile attempt to stop your porn habits being tracked is not a valid argument against IPv6
should certainly not be simplified into
> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear
in the context of the full original comment which mentioned that hiding behind an CGNAT IP address is _not_ hiding, given that other more robust (and already prevalent) methods of tracking exist.
Obviously, two wrongs do not make a right, but since we are already talking about logical fallacies I might as well warn all the readers here that this thread is full of 'em - take the comments with a grain of salt.
You need a log-less VPN service at the very least if you desire true privacy. Otherwise, IPv6 with privacy extension will achieve the same effect as CGNAT.
There is no problem at all with the police or Interpol wanting to track a CGNAT map requested to the ISP through legal channels. This is why ISPs are required by law to retain the logs.
The privacy extension is for use on the rest of internet.
> Normal people just use a VPN or a cloud proxy [...]
Ad hominem
<< The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic [...] >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem