[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"

[Stephanie Perrin]

Indeed, the WHOIS disclosure instrument may be the thing that sticks in 
everybody's mind, but it is not the first place to start in addressing a 
comprehensive approach to RDS privacy.  First you have to address why 
you are collecting each data element.  Is the core purpose justifiable 
and proportionate? etc, we spent an hour on it with Mr. Canatacci and we 
are not done yet....

Yes, privacy proxy services have been the stop gap over the years.  The 
data is still being collected without a clear statement of purpose, 
disclosed in a variety of ways that may not pass muster, retained in 
violation of at least EU law and likely others, data subject access and 
disclosure rights inadequately addressed......

Lets wait till we get our answers to the questions before we start 
discussing possible solutions.  I think we are jumping ahead quite a bit.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-03-21 15:18, allison nixon wrote:
> I find myself in agreement with the free whois privacy idea. It 
> renders a lot of these privacy concerns moot, and it isn't a big leap 
> to make because many registrars already offer it for free. It also 
> won't break the many security systems used by companies and law 
> enforcement every day. It will also resolve the spam issue. And it 
> does seem that giving users a true, zero-cost, choice as to how they 
> want their data disseminated will resolve a lot of the legal issues as 
> well.
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:06 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg 
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>     And part of the "if so" includes whether the individual chooses to
>     protect it in some free privacy regime. It's the same question.
>
>     Its why Twitter can exist. If you post publicly knowing you are
>     doing so and having a true choice, then privacy issues become
>     greatly reduced.
>
>     Here we have (1) you MUST provide "all this stuff" and (2) you
>     MUST pay extra or we broadcast it to the world.
>
>     It isn't an ancillary question. Its the fundamental one.
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>     > On Mar 21, 2017, at 13:55, "ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>     <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>     <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:22:18PM -0500, John Bambenek wrote:
>     >> I think we should also discuss at a higher level that if
>     privacy services were free from the registrars if that would
>     largely resolve all of this.
>     >
>     > I don't see how.  The experts last week were quite clear that the
>     > first question is about collection, and our PDP is chartered to talk
>     > about that too, so we have to discuss whether some of this data
>     should
>     > be collected at all, and if so by whom.
>     >
>     > A
>     >
>     > --
>     > Andrew Sullivan
>     > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>     > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170321/9e224205/attachment-0001.html>