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

[John Bambenek]

Yes there is a difference which is why I am using both words. And that's why I am suggesting we talking about optional and maskable fields right up front as part of the requirements discussion not some ancillary discussion that happens later after all the decisions are already made. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 09:56, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 09:30:37AM -0500, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>> 
>> Making most of the fields optional/maskable means we don't have to adopt a one-size fits all approach. 
>> 
> 
> But there's a big difference between "optional" and "maskable".  Data
> that isn't collected can't be disclosed, at all, ever, to anyone,
> because the collector doesn't have it.  It cannot be delivered in
> response to a subpoena.  It cannot be leaked due to attacks on the
> database.  It cannot be subject of "just this once" requests from law
> enforcement or identity thieves doing social engineering or creeps who
> want to spy on their old girl/boyfriend.
> 
> Data that is masked or otherwise controlled in disclosure is still
> there for the taking; we're just arguing about the conditions.
> 
> And that's why we're talking about data collection first.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg