[anti-abuse-wg] EU Data Protection

Ah, a Godwin on the other side, just to start with. Stasi are the new
Hitler like orange is the new black?

Right now Ronald is, in admittedly a rather roundabout way, talking about
people who are running rings around your favorite 'resource registry'
processes, such as they are, and leaving the rest of you very little v4
space that isn't irretrievably poisoned after a day or two of their using
it.

And yes, everybody is supposed to have switched to v6 over a decade back,
funny how v4 manages to be so long lived.

And as for arguments about let them register as much v6 ad they want, there
is plenty, remember that 'should be enough for everyone' attitude in the
early days of v4?

History, especially operational history, is out there for people to
actually learn from it, not trot out stale tropes about Internet police and
the stasi.
 On Nov 5, 2014 3:42 PM, "Sascha Luck" <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20141105/9add1d18/attachment.html>