[db-wg] 2022-01 V2 Resource Holders Address

Hi Ronald

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 11:45, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
<db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> In message <CAKvLzuFYcfarXvGLesYTNU1S8dviL=ke4Khv0pLy=hXg9P4cRQ at mail.gmail.com>
> denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I was getting comments from people that LEAs need addresses for their
> >investigations, but also people had serious privacy concerns about
> >publishing their home address in the database...
>
> Who, exactly?
>
> Just because you found one small-fry member who has elected to endorse
> this abject silliness, that hardly constitutes any kind of great outpouring
> of support,

So natural persons who are "silly small-fry members" should not have a
voice against the big-fry global industries?

> nor does it constitute a persuasive mandate to change the way
> things have been done for 20+ years worth of precedent, or the way that
> things are still being done in every other region.

Money laundering has been commonplace throughout Europe for 20+ years.
That is why the EU brought in anti money laundering regulations. That
was one of the main driving forces behind brexit. The wealthy elite
who run the UK wanted to continue their criminal activities unchecked.
Long standing precedents need to be reviewed sometimes...and yes,
changed.

>
> You folks in Europe often express amazement that we here in the U.S. are
> nowadays having daily mass shooting incidents.  You wonder how our politics
> ever got to be so insane.  The reason is that a relatively small by noisy
> minority consistantly drive the public debate about guns in this country.
>
> I hope that the same political dynamic will not also drive discussions
> regarding the historical openness of the RIPE data base, a data base that
> is supposed to be an open public resource.

an open, public resource of accurate, verifiable, meaningful data.

>
> The fact that a single member insists on their supposed "rights" to BOTH
> (a) have IP addresses AND also (b) timidly hide out in a virtual cave
> should not be the sole basis for guiding policy choices that affect an
> entire planet's worth of Internet users.

On the other hand a VERY large number of natural persons (think
telecom customers) who may have signed a connectivity agreement that
mentioned in the small print their name and address will be published
in some database they have never heard of, do need to be protected.
These are the "rights" the GDPR was introduced to protect.

>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
> P.S.  This is NOT much ado about nothing.  I sense the beginning of a
> slippery slope.  Today it's mailing addresses, "just" of natural persons,
> or so we are told.  Tomorrow it's phone numbers and names and email
> addresses.  Once one adopts the position that privacy is everything and
> transparency is nothing, then you might as well just put the whole RIPE
> WHOIS data base behind a paywall and only allow law enforcement access to
> it, and even then, only if they get a warrant first.

The 'slippery slope' argument is usually an attempt to add emotive
elements to a discussion when you don't have any constructive
arguments...

cheers
denis
proposal author

>
> I'm sure that such an outcome would suit certain people just fine.  I am
> not one of them.
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/