This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Tue May 29 17:54:57 CEST 2018
Hi Carlos, On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:38:08PM +0100, Carlos Friaas wrote: >One can argue that a "real abuse contact" related to a DNS domain is >necessary for the contract's performance, no? >The same is valid about the contract between RIPE/NCC and LIRs over >assigned IP address space, right? You can argue that - it's the meat of the noyb ./. FB and Google cases, aiui. You can also argue that publishing this data without any access control is *not* necessary to the operation of the registry and therefore access to services can't be made contingent on consent to this. I predict there will be a court case over this very soon. cheers, Sascha Luck > >Cheers, >Carlos > > >On Tue, 29 May 2018, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > >>On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:50:09PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote: >>>Would you be able to point to the section of the GDPR which states >>>this? Admission: I have yet to make it to the end of the 88 pages >>>of the act without falling asleep. >> >>It derives (also the tenor of NOYB's filing, aiui) from Article >>7(4): >> >>"4. When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost >>account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of >>a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional >>on consent to the processing of personal data that is not >>necessary for the performance of that contract." >> >>http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-7-conditions-for-consent-GDPR.htm >> >>cheers, >>Sascha Luck >> >>> >>>>The first case regarding this has already been filed: >>>>https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/max-schrems-files-first-cases-under-gdpr-against-facebook-and-google-1.3508177 <https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/max-schrems-files-first-cases-under-gdpr-against-facebook-and-google-1.3508177> >>>I appreciate a motion has been filed. However, I???d surprised if >>>the case purely revolved around this single point. >>> >>>It is positive that some of this stuff is going to be tested in >>>court sooner rather than later. Having said that, it may be >>><sarcasm> a day or two </sarcasm> before we get to see a final >>>judgement with no further appeals. >>> >>>All the best >>> >>>Simon >>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]