[Gnso-epdp-team] Question for legal advisors

[Alan Greenberg]

As requested during the last meeting, here is a question to go to the 
Legal Committee looking for a clear legal opinion.

===============================

If information is to be requested released to third parties, the 
controller or other party(ies) must decide whether the need for the 
data outweighs the data subject's right to privacy.

If the decision is made by a human, the competing needs/rights can be 
carefully weighed to decide whether the request should be honoured. 
If we are to consider any form of automated decision process, it is 
unlikely that we can build a sufficiently robust artificial 
intelligence engine to carry out the balancing operation. That raises 
the question of to what extent, based on appropriate accreditation 
processes, can we rely on the vetting during accreditation and the 
commitments made by the requester in order to be accredited can be relied upon.

Specifically, if a requester is properly vetted and provides 
assurances (and proof?) they understand the balancing that must be 
done, can the automated system presume that the balancing test has 
been satisfied.

Of course, accreditation could be revoked if it comes to light that 
inappropriate requests are being made.

In one simple case, if a UDRP provider (who is authenticated as such) 
make a request claiming it is for an ongoing UDRP process, can it be 
presumed that it is an authentic request and simply grant it.

A less clear case is that of a cyber security researcher who has been 
properly accredited (the Anti-Phishing WG as an example).

Perhaps other specific cases should be cited in the question, but we 
do need guidance in the general case. Without being able to rely on 
the reputation and assurances of the requester, I do not see how ANY 
automated process will be possible.

Alan