[cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful

hi,
patrik thanks!

and in case of the "dreams aka visions" of jim and gordon: i would add "must delete", applied to all levels. stored as well as requested data.

i mean, i am still able to go to a eu forensic institute today to see pictures of alphonse bertillon. yet, in the 19th century they had a sort of  "must delete" law in place, which only was fulfilled in regard to sloppiness in the archive - - - or fire.
mariann




  


On Apr 8, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> On 8 Apr 2014, at 15:17, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On the bright side it could make implementing carrier-grade NATs so much more fun.
> 
> Or perhaps it'll be the tipping point for carriers to deploy IPv6. :-) Says he both ducking for cover and running away...
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140408/09f524bb/attachment.sig>