[anti-abuse-wg] EU Data Protection

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:31:04AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>   Personal data are defined as "any information relating to an identified
>   or identifiable natural person ("data subject");...
>
>I am asuming that, in this context, "natural person" has the same meaning
>on both your side of the pond and mine, i.e. a carbon-based life form, and
>an entity composed of flesh and blood.   Does that term have that meaning
>also within the EU?

You are probably right that the DPD only applies to natural persons,
however natural persons also hold independent resources (I personally 
had both a PI assignment and an ASN at some stage)

>% Information related to 'JS6689-RIPE'
>
>So, as I say, I am perplexed.  You tell me that RIPE has a legal obligation
>to protect secrecy/privacy, and I _do_ believe you.  The several online
>articles I've read on the subject this evening are all quite clear that
>this is indeed correct.  Nontheless, the clear evidence which is right

I personally think that publishing "person" objects does indeed break the
law, NCC Legal clearly disagrees. TTBOMK, this has never been tested in
court.
However, there is currently no requirement to have any other info than
some contact info in this object, so data hygiene is clearly possible.
(it also does not have to be "official" information)

>And if, as would seem to be the case, RIPE *has* indeed found a legally
>viable way to be transparent about certain things... e.g. the entries
>in its data base... even while still remaining within bounds of EU data
>protection regulations... then why can it not do so also with respect
>to all those contracts that it signs with things which are not natural
>persons?

So there might not be an actual legal obligation to keep these contracts
confidential. I'm not even sure now that the general LIR Service
Contract (which states that all contractual information is confidential)
applies in this case as (in case of a sponsoring LIR) it is not a
contract that the NCC is a party to. In any case, this is for NCC Legal
to answer, not for me.

I'm not sure that the contract contains any relevant information,
besides that which is published in the db already. Whatever pricing and
other conditions were agreed is none of your business.

Whatever documentation is used to verify ID is, in case of passport
copies, etc, very much subject to the DPD; in case of registration
documents, these are (usually) public information, there may be a
copyright issue though as many authorities make these available, but
not for free. 

In any case, I'm sure I'm not the only member whose idea of what we pay
the NCC for is to be a resource registry,  *not* an intelligence 
repository for curtain-twitchers and anyone who fancies themselves some
kind of Internet Stasi. We already pay taxes for government agencies to
be that. 

rgds,
Sascha Luck