<div dir="ltr">I dont know if there have been regulatory rulings about WHOIS but Companieshouse in the UK might be something comparable. Here's an example company listing (I searched "lloyds bank"): <div><br></div><div><a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00002065">https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00002065</a><br></div><div><a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00002065/officers">https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00002065/officers</a><br><div><br></div><div>So you have a physical address, a list of people's names, their physical addresses, and their entire filing history. Is this "leaked" data as well? Or is this information necessary to comply with the regulations of that country? Is Companieshouse going to shut down to comply with GDPR?</div><div><br></div><div>Is data really "leaked" when everyone knew it was going to be public in the first place? Does the definition of "leak" now mean every instance of publicly released data?</div><div><br></div><div>Do these privacy laws outlaw the release of public data, and do they have no allowance for the concept of publicly releasing data, when the user is informed prior to them giving the data?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:59:15AM -0400, Dotzero wrote:<br>
> predecessor regulations have been around for quite some time and if the<br>
> whois privacy issues we have been debating are truly a significant problem<br>
> to the extent that some represent them to be, I would expect that there<br>
> would have been at least some sort of precedents specific to whois.<br>
<br>
</span>I think that, regardless of any legal cases, the current whois leaks<br>
way too much information. ICANN has an enormous bureaucracy around<br>
"whois accuracy" partly (but only partly) because ordinary people<br>
don't want to pay extra to keep their home telephone numbers off from<br>
being wide open on the Internet, so they lie about it. There is _no<br>
reason_ that we are still using an ancient protocol that was designed<br>
for a completely different network environment.<br>
<br>
The IAB recommends, in RFC 6973, that protocols do something about<br>
data minimization (see section 6.1). The evidence we have is that<br>
greater exposure of data provides a vector for attacks we haven't even<br>
thought about. Therefore, we should not expose data to everyone<br>
unless we are sure that it is necessary (and some of this data _is_<br>
necessary to expose to everyone); and we should be able to track who<br>
got the data if we're exposing data that is not published to everyone.<br>
<br>
I don't think any of this should be news, and I think it is really<br>
strange that we seem still to be discussing whether it is something we<br>
need to embrace.<br>
<span class=""><br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
</span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">_________________________________<br>Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.</div>
</div>