[db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:

HI Maria

Thanks for the preliminary analysis. I do have a couple of questions below...

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 09:21, Maria Stafyla <mstafyla at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Denis, all,
>
> Thank you for your patience in this matter.
>
> We looked into this and the answer varies depending on the situation.
>
> Allocations and assignments can be made to either natural or legal persons. In the inetnums and inet6nums to be created the contact details of the relevant person will be inserted.
>
> For example, if a /27 IPv4 block is assigned to a legal person, the geofeed data will likely not constitute personal data. This will not be the case if an IPv4 /32 (single IP address) is assigned to a sole trader and the assignment is registered under the sole trader's name in the RIPE Database*. In this latter example, the inetnum will contain the contact details of the sole trader and the geofeed data will qualify as personal data.
>
> This is because personal data under GDPR is defined as any information that relates to an identified or identifiable natural person.
>

So in this situation, if this sole trader has a phone used exclusively
for the business and a business email address and these are listed as
their business contact details, are you saying the business phone and
email are still classed as personal data? If that is true then
anything 'relating' to the business is also 'relating' to the natural
person and is therefore personal data.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG


> Based on the above and before introducing the geofeed attribute, a full impact analysis of its implementation would have to be conducted by the RIPE NCC.
>
> If you have any questions, please let us know.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Maria Stafyla
> Senior Legal Counsel
> RIPE NCC
>
>
> * Please note that the relevant RIPE Policy (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#62) is allowing not to register assignments on the end user's contact details but as part of the service provider's internal infrastructure.
>
>
> On 08/01/2021 11:27, Maria Stafyla wrote:
>
> Hi Denis, all
>
> Please allow us some time to look into this and we will get back to you
> with our feedback next week.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Maria Stafyla
> Senior Legal Counsel
> RIPE NCC
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 15:59
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
> To: Hank Nussbacher <hank at interall.co.il>, <legal at ripe.net>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
>
>
> HI Hank, colleagues
>
> Whilst I can't answer your basic question, I could say that if the
> IETF approves a change to RPSL, with the RIPE Database data model
> based on RPSL, in principle we should implement the RPSL change.
>
> Perhaps another question, to the RIPE NCC legal team, if I have a
> fixed IP address or block of addresses, is this geofeed location data
> personal data under the terms of GDPR?
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 07:01, hank--- via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> I guess I am not understanding something.
> Why do we need a geofeed attribute?  What problem are we trying to solve?
>
> I understand why each block of IPs needs to be associated with a
> country, so that certain language specific auto-customizations will
> work.  But what purpose is there to know that a /24 is in central
> Amsterdam?  Is the purpose to assist marketers in geo-targetted sales?
>   Is the purpose for network engineering (not sure what major problem
> we have that needs this)?
>
> Is the purpose to know where you are so that in the event of an
> emergency (terror, tornado, etc) you can get emergency targeted
> alerts?  If so, then the geofeed has to be at the /32 level and since
> many if not most IPs are mobile, and that is where you will get the
> alert from - from your cellphone provider, I still don't quite
> understand the reason for a geofeed tag.
>
> Can someone clue me in?
>
> Thanks,
> Hank
>
> Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express
> the views or opinions of my employer
>
>