[db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:31:20PM +0200, denis wrote:

Dear Denis

> On 14/04/2016 08:41, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:07:01AM +0200, denis wrote:
>>
>> Denis
>>
>>> You really are barking up the wrong tree here.
>>
>> Nice try, but you misinterpret my intentions.
>
> This is a very condescending remark.

I could personally perceive the same way your comment about barking up
the wrong tree.
Maybe one of us is oversensitive. Or this is plain language barrier.

>> The hijacking issue was there for years. I'm just surprised that it was
>> not raised by you during the discussion of issue 221.
>
> Again this is another condescending remark. You imply that I should know 
> everything at all times. If you knew about this hijacking issue that you 

Not at all. I just declare that I'm surprised.

> say has been around for years, then as a co-chair of this working group why 
> did you not mention it at the time?

Oh. I did.

>>> You seem to be determined to 'prove' I am wrong suggesting rolling back the
>>> name change would fix this issue. But you don't seem to accept that the
>>> action you have taken has also NOT fixed the problem but caused many more
>>> serious problems.
>>
>> Please refrain from suggesting that I have done something.
>
> The whole tone of this thread is one of attack and aggression towards me. 
> You are not discussing the issues but you are discussing me. You are 
> relentlessly pursuing my comments and looking back in history to prove me 
> wrong, instead of trying to move forward. You are doing exactly what you 
> accuse me of.

I do not accuse you of anything.

>> Moreover, keep saying the mantra about causing many more serious
>> problems is neither the proof of this thesis nor the solution to
>> anything. If you know/see something which could seriously improve the
>> quality of the data, security model, business rules, etc, just bring it
>> on the table.
>
> Sorry but you are missing the point here. It is not a thesis and I have 
> stated the serious problem. I was part of the Data Protection Task Force 
> many years ago. I spent a lot of time with the RIPE NCC's lawyers 
> discussing the data protection issues around the RIPE Database.
>
> The action you have taken HAS already created a data protection issue. 

Once again - please refrain from writing that I have done something
here. At least that is how I understand constant usage of the word
"you".

> There are now about a million personal data sets in the database that the 
> data subjects cannot change. The RIPE NCC has stated it will not unlock any 
> of these objects as they cannot be sure who they refer to. The RIPE NCC, as 
> Data Controller of this database has a million personal data sets in their 
> database that they cannot assert contain accurate data and they have 
> prevented the data subjects from updating their personal data. The RIPE NCC 
> also, even as Data Controller, cannot do anything to fix or replace these 
> personal data sets.

If this is data protection issue, I suggest to notice the Dutch Data
Protection Authority.

> Now I will bring some suggestions to the table to fix this issue. First I 
> would like the RIPE NCC legal team to review this situation and publish to 
> this list their considerations. Secondly I suggest the RIPE NCC unlocks 
> these objects, as it makes no difference to the hijacking situation that 
> you say has been around for years anyway. Third I suggest the RIPE NCC 
> aggressively pursues the members who reference these unmaintained personal 
> objects and pushes them to either maintain them or replace them.

Now, this is something.

> Finally I would say that for an issue that the DB WG co-chairs have known 
> to have been around for many years, I don't see why it needed a secret, 
> back room discussion and a sudden announcement that the RIPE NCC has locked 
> a million objects without any community discussion.
>
> As I am not receiving the emails in this discussion from the DB WG mailing 
> list, I think you may have already blocked them. So I have cc'd Athina 
> directly for a legal comment.

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl