[anti-abuse-wg] Spamming LIR accounts

I have been told both things. That company email accounts wouldn't fall on its scope (even if they contained the full name) and that such usage would be improperly treating PII.

GDPR seems to mostly leave that part to Directive 2002/58/EC, which isn't completely clear:
Article 13

Unsolicited communications

1. The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent.

2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, where a natural or legal person obtains from its customers their electronic contact details for electronic mail, in the context of the sale of a product or a service, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, the same natural or legal person may use these electronic contact details for direct marketing of its own similar products or services provided that customers clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object, free of charge and in an easy manner, to such use of electronic contact details when they are collected and on the occasion of each message in case the customer has not initially refused such use.

3. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that, free of charge, unsolicited communications for purposes of direct marketing, in cases other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, are not allowed either without the consent of the subscribers concerned or in respect of subscribers who do not wish to receive these communications, the choice between these options to be determined by national legislation.

4. In any event, the practice of sending electronic mail for purposes of direct marketing disguising or concealing the identity of the sender on whose behalf the communication is made, or without a valid address to which the recipient may send a request that such communications cease, shall be prohibited.

5. Paragraphs 1 and 3 shall apply to subscribers who are natural persons. Member States shall also ensure, in the framework of Community law and applicable national legislation, that the legitimate interests of subscribers other than natural persons with regard to unsolicited communications are sufficiently protected.

It talks mainly about natural persons, but others should as well have adequate, protections. so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/email-marketing/
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002L0058&from=EN

The fact that in RIPE database all those role accounts emails are considered "personal data sets" in the RIPE db may or may not also influence how it should be treated w.r.t its treatments.


In any case, not complying with the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions may make such use unlawful even if it would be otherwise acceptable.


Best regards

Ángel


El mar, 12-05-2020 a las 23:41 +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg escribió:
I’m not sure if this is true in all the cases, because a physical person can also have PI resources and then a personal email in the database.

There is one more point, which I’m discussing with the Spanish DPA in the constitutional court, and it is the classification between personal and company emails, when they have your name and family name, you use it for personal matters (even if the domain is  from a company – example, you can have separate  emails for business and personal, bus using the same domain), and if the collection of data was authorized or not, and if it was just data collection or also spam.

Is not easy. In Spain, the spam (even with business emails) is not allowed according to a further law (LSSI). I guess it varies from country to country.

Anyway, I think it has been said a few days ago, harvesting the databases for spam is against the AUP.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet





El 12/5/20 23:27, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de alex at idgara.nl<mailto:alex at idgara.nl>> escribió:

A good summary Sabri.

One of the points that has not been addressed (fully) is the fact that the mailing went out to 'role accounts' which are normally company accounts (if some used a personal email  address for that, than this will have suddenly become a business email address), so GDPR applicability would be remote, if at all.

Alex (LL.M)
--
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex at idgara.nl<mailto:alex at idgara.nl> | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode

On Tue, 12-05-2020 21h 12min, Sabri Berisha <sabri at cluecentral.net<mailto:sabri at cluecentral.net>> wrote:
----- On May 12, 2020, at 4:51 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com<mailto:ximaera at gmail.com>> wrote:



Peace,
Peace,

 On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:29 PM Arash Naderpour
 <arash.naderpour at gmail.com<mailto:arash.naderpour at gmail.com>> wrote:

EU laws are for EU

 Perhaps sadly for some, but this is not how it works.  EU laws protect
 EU citizens wherever they are, or the EU citizens' personal and
 sensitive data wherever it is accessed, processed, or stored.

Perhaps sadly for some, but this is not how it works.

First of all, there is the requirement for the non-EU company to intentionally provide goods or services to the EU. That can be found in article 3(2)a.

This means that, per EU rules, the GDPR will not apply to the mom&pop ice cream shop in San Francisco that takes online orders from a EU citizen that happens to be visiting the U.S. The GDPR only affects companies (in or outside the EU) that market to EU citizens or territories.

Second, and most important, for a law to protect it must be enforceable. For a law to be enforceable, a court must be able to issue a judgement, and that judgement must be executable.

EU judgements based on the GDPR are not necessarily enforceable outside the EU, at least not in the U.S. Treaties must be in place, and a good example is the Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.

In the U.S., foreign judgements are enforceable if they comply with the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act. This law specifies that a judgement may not be recognized if the foreign court did not have "personal jurisdiction" on the U.S. entity. If that entity does not have a physical presence in the EU, establishing the foreign court’s personal jurisdiction will be very difficult if not impossible.

But, for folks that did not go to law school, here is a simpler explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2FlW79PfU9PfU :-)

Thanks,

Sabri

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



--

INCIBE-CERT - CERT of the Spanish National Cybersecurity Institute https://www.incibe-cert.es/ PGP Keys: https://www.incibe-cert.es/en/what-is-incibe-cert/pgp-public-keys ======================================================================== INCIBE-CERT is the Spanish National CSIRT designated for citizens, private law entities, other entities not included in the subjective scope of application of the "Ley 40/2015, de 1 de octubre, de Régimen Jurídico del Sector Público", as well as digital service providers, operators of essential services and critical operators under the terms of the "Real Decreto-ley 12/2018, de 7 de septiembre, de seguridad de las redes y sistemas de información" that transposes the Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union. ======================================================================== Disclaimer: This message may contain confidential information, within the framework of the corporate Security Management System.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this message without forwarding or retaining a copy, since any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited by law. ========================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200512/048a489e/attachment.html>