[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The principle for thin data (was Re: Principle on Proportionality for "Thin Data"access)
John Bambenek
jcb at bambenekconsulting.com
Fri Jun 2 13:59:07 UTC 2017
So its an educational problem then? Ok, let's just solve that. Maybe create a page on ICANN translated into "all the languages" that explain in normal-person-language what all this means. Registrars can point to that, then get consent, and we can all move on already.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 2, 2017, at 08:19, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
> you are correct, but:
>
> The way it has been done is no longer sufficient. Simply providing notice and getting consent through the RA no longer works. The purposes now have to be clearly defined, not vague and indescript as in the past.
> So yes, the basic idea is the same but the implementation and actual requirements of doing so have changed significantly.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>> Am 02.06.2017 um 15:14 schrieb Greg Aaron:
>> BTW, disclosure and permission have been required in ICANN contracts for years; registrants agree to it and receive the details in their registration contracts. The latest version is in the 2013 RAA:
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en
>> Some of the relevant language is:
>>
>> “3.7.7.4 Registrar shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating:
>> 3.7.7.4.1 The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended;
>> 3.7.7.4.2 The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator);
>> 3.7.7.4.3 Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and
>> 3.7.7.4.4 How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them.
>> 3.7.7.5 The Registered Name Holder shall consent to the data processing referred to in Subsection 3.7.7.4.
>> 3.7.7.6 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that notice has been provided equivalent to that described in Subsection 3.7.7.4 to any third-party individuals whose Personal Data are supplied to Registrar by the Registered Name Holder, and that the Registered Name Holder has obtained consent equivalent to that referred to in Subsection 3.7.7.5 of any such third-party individuals.
>> 3.7.7.7 Registrar shall agree that it will not process the Personal Data collected from the Registered Name Holder in a way incompatible with the purposes and other limitations about which it has provided notice to the Registered Name Holder in accordance with Subsection 3.7.7.4 above.
>> 3.7.7.8 Registrar shall agree that it will take reasonable precautions to protect Personal Data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.
>> 3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third party.”
>>
>>
>> **********************************
>> Greg Aaron
>> Vice-President, Product Management
>> iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
>> mobile: +1.215.858.2257
>> **********************************
>> The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>>
>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dotzero
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:48 AM
>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>> Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The principle for thin data (was Re: Principle on Proportionality for "Thin Data"access)
>>
>> The issue you raise is addressed simply enough by requiring a privacy disclosure be displayed at the time of domain registration. This requirement can be incorporated into the ICANN registry agreements. Note that this does not resolve the issue for CC domains.
>>
>> Michael Hammer
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> I certainly agree that if people enter personal information as part of their DNS registration or their motor vehicle licence registration, it is done with implied consent... as long as there is sufficient information to permit them to understand just how the data is being used and where it is going. However, as I tried to say with respect to registering a domain name, I really don't think the average non-expert citizen who might want to register a domain name would get enough information to truly understand how far his/her information goes, and how difficult it is to get it removed once it has appeared in the public record. We should build this system so that everyone understands it, not just the experts.
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On 2017-06-01 05:18, jonathan matkowsky wrote:
>> Stephanie,
>>
>> I agree with you that we should not conflate collection limitation principles with openness principles.
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with most of what you wrote in the first paragraph of your post script.
>> Here we are talking about users potentially entering personal or pseudonymous information when they are not being asked for it (nor is it required) to begin with, and it is not required for purposes of which it's being collected. That is the
>>
>> scope
>> of what needs to be assessed
>> if at all and how the scope needs to be
>> defined from the beginning
>> if you were to conduct a PIA
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Personal information is not being used or intended to be used just because a person decides to enter personal information into a field.
>>
>> The example of how you can combine databases to re-identify a person based on the SOA record is the equivalent of protecting domain names as personal information because a person
>> can register their driver's license
>> or name and date of birth
>> as a domain name.
>>
>> I would argue no PIA should be required
>> as a result
>> even in accordance even with best practices.
>>
>> A PIA needs to be conducted in a manner that is commensurate with the level of privacy risk identified
>> .
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with you that thin data is personal. We are talking about identifiers (codes or strings that represent an individual or device). Many labels can be used to point to individuals. Some are precise and most, imprecise or vague. There's no question that an IP address is a device identifier. Device IDs, MAC addresses can be a source for user tracking. But
>> i
>> dentifiers can be strong or weak depending on how precise they are as well as the context. It cannot be measured without taking linkability into consideration. For that reason, name servers are not the same as IP addresses or MAC addresses any more so than the existence of a domain name is an identifier. If a person chooses to use identifiable information when it is not being asked for or required for purposes of which the data is being collected, that does that mean we need to classify all the data according to that unlikely scenario. Those setting up their own DNS would be relatively speaking, sophisticated Internet users that presumably know the basics of how DNS operates in any case, so by entering the information in that way, they are choosing to customize their DNS in a personal way similar to a person that chooses to show personal information on their license plate number.
>>
>> I know that the motor vehicle registry is restricted now in most places so that you would need a subpoena to get that kind of personal information. This is also true of an IP address though and IP providers. The fact is a person can put their name and date of birth on a license plate if they want to customize it. And then they get on the road. That does not mean the license plate numbers are all personal information. It's pseudonymous data. It is true that it is a stronger identifier than an IP address insofar as if you subpoena the motor vehicle registry operator, you will get the personal information behind that license plate number. If you subpoena the ISP, you MIGHT get the personal information depending on the nature of the IP address. It's still true that to drive a car, you need to show your license plate number on the vehicle.
>>
>> I would argue that thin Whois data is pseudonymous or personal data to the same extent that a person can choose to customize a license plate if they want to, and put personal or psuedonymous data into fields
>> for which the data being collected does not ask for or require them to do so.
>>
>>
>> A
>> person can register their driver's license as a domain name.
>> They can use a personal email in their SOA record, or personal NS.
>> Just because it's theoretically possible for someone to enter pseudonymous (or even personal) data into multiple databases when they are not being asked for it, and those combination of choices make it possible to identify them, does not mean one of the sets (Thin Whois) should be classified as personal information subject to a PIA.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Matkowsky,
>> VP – IP & Brand Security
>> USA:: 1.347.467.1193 | Office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766
>> Emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831
>> Company Reg. No. 514805332
>> 11/1 Nachal Chever, Modiin Israel
>> Website
>> RiskIQ Technologies Ltd. (wholly-owned by RiskIQ, Inc.)
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> Your summary today was great Andrew.
>>
>> I am not arguing about the disclosure of thin data. We already voted on unauthenticated mandatory disclosure, weeks ago (or at least it feels like weeks ago). Lets please move on. We are debating this yet again, because people keep asking, is thin data personal? [lots of people missed the last call] The answer is yes (IMHO). Does that mean it cannot be disclosed? The answer is no. Does the proportionality principle apply? Yes. Have we already gone through this? Yes. Can we come back to it? Yes, but hopefully only if we have to.....we will have to when we get to data elements.
>>
>> cheers Stephanie
>> PS a fundamental problem here is that people try to categorize information that in their view should be disclosed, as not personal information. This fight has gone on for years over IP address, for instance. The important question is not actually whether it is personal data or not, it is "do you need to disclose it to make things work?"....and if the answer is yes then you try to mitigate the disclosure and try to keep it minimized to what is absolutely required. Hence the PIA, which should employ both data minimization and the test in the proportionality principle as techniques to evaluate data elements.
>> A good and really simple example is a phone number. IS it personal info? (the telcos fought for years, trying to claim they owned it and it was not personal). Obviously it pertains to you, people feel strongly that it is personal (culturally relative of course but...) and yet if noone ever learns your number your phone won't ever receive a call. That does not mean you have to disclose it everywhere.....only where necessary. And it should mean that it does not have to follow you everywhere, but that is becoming increasingly hard to manage....
>>
>> By the way, informed consent is not the same as transparency requirements. Transparency requirements are exactly that....you have to be transparent about what you are doing with data. Let us not conflate that with consent.
>>
>> I will quit now and stop trying to answer questions. I would like to humbly suggest, however, that we have a real shortage of basic understanding of how data protection law works and is interpreted. If there is a data protection law expert that folks might listen to, we should hire that person to advise us. It might save a lot of time.
>>
>>
>> On 2017-05-31 16:00, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:20:59PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> That does not mean we need to protect it, it means we have to examine it in
>> terms of DP law. May I repeat the suggestion that Canatacci made in
>> Copenhagen in response to a question.....(I forget the precise question he
>> was asked, sorry). If you want to figure out whether you have to protect
>> something or not, do a privacy impact assessment.
>> As I think I've said more than once in this thread, I think we _have_
>> done that assessment and I think the answers are obvious and I think
>> therefore that there is nothing more to say about this principle in
>> respect of thin data:
>>
>> - the data is either necessary for the operation of the system
>> itself or else necessary for distributed operation and
>> troubleshooting on the Internet.
>>
>> - the data does not expose identifying information about anyone,
>> except in rather strained examples where the identifying
>> information is already completely available via other means.
>>
>> What more is one supposed to do?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170602/144f3154/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list