[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Using the GDPR as a basis for RDS Policy is backwards
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Thu Feb 15 15:56:56 UTC 2018
I imagine you would. Anyone who needs big data for their job does. And
that is not necessarily a bad thing as big data can be used for
wonderful things.
Unless it conflicts with the personal rights of those you are collecting
data on. Because they also do not like their data being available for
anyone to see, forever.
Volker
Am 15.02.2018 um 16:47 schrieb Paul Keating:
> Paraphrasing a person I know.
>
> The more data input the better as long as it is carefully considered.
>
> I do NOT like the idea of relying on ICANN to receive input provided
> via their interacting with a third party. I would prefer to obtain
> the unfiltered data.
>
> Paul
>
> From: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> on behalf
> of Chuck <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>
> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:56 PM
> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es <mailto:paul at law.es>>, 'Volker Greimann'
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>,
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Using the GDPR as a basis for RDS
> Policy is backwards
>
> Apparently, ICANN org has been interacting with DPAs regarding a
> possible interim solution, so maybe we will get some helpful input
> from those efforts. Note Stephanie’s suggestion that we could
> submit questions to the DP experts that participated in our public
> meeting last year.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 6:10 AM
> *To:* Chuck <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>;
> 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Using the GDPR as a basis for RDS
> Policy is backwards
>
> Chuck,
>
> That said I really do like the idea of having interaction and
> participation by the DPAs and even someone from Article 29 or
> other GDPR official groups. Otherwise we continue to work in a
> vacuum.
>
> *From: *gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck
> <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:57 PM
> *To: *'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Using the GDPR as a basis for RDS
> Policy is backwards
>
> I’d like to think that the ICANN community effort going on
> outside this WG will take note of the cybersecurity concerns
> that Allison raises as they try to finalize an interim
> solution to deal with the GDPR in the near term. Note this
> quote from Goren’s latest blog that ICANN org is trying to
> find a balanced approach: “This single, common interim model
> that is informed by input from across the ICANN community
> would seek to obtain compliance with both the GDPR and ICANN's
> contractual requirements related to registration directory
> services.” Here’s the blog:
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-latest-developments
>
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Volker Greimann
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 1:02 AM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Using the GDPR as a basis for
> RDS Policy is backwards
>
> DPAs are law enforcement and will enforce the law of the land.
> They do not have the option to pick and choose after May 25.
>
> Maybe it is time for you and your colleagues to start looking
> at other sources of information to ensure you can continue
> operation efficiently once your currently chosen method
> becomes illegal. Remember, you are a data processor too and
> what you do with that data could very well paint a target on
> your backs that DPS may have to deal with.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
> Am 15.02.2018 um 02:36 schrieb allison nixon:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have already begun to hear unrest from my colleagues who
> work in infosec and network operations about the
> degradation of WHOIS, as registrars have already begun to
> act on their own, stripping everything and blocking bulk
> queriers on domains frequently used for attacks. Every day
> of additional uncertainty equals an additional day of
> victimization.
>
> Why has no one approached the DPAs with the evidence of
> security purposes for WHOIS? How much network degradation
> will we tolerate before someone bothers to give them a
> little hint? How many more judgments from the DPAs are we
> going to read that display clear ignorance of all
> legitimate cybersecurity purposes? Did no one see this coming?
>
> Since we are talking about cost benefit analysis, here is
> a quick one I just did that I would like to share with the
> group. I did a quick look for the value of the domain
> registration industry as a whole. Seems to be ~$4 billion.
> The losses incurred by the WanaCry malware are estimated
> to be at ~$8 billion. A single security incident
> destroying value equal to double your entire industry.
>
> In May 2017, the FBI stated that over three years the
> "business email compromise" scams have topped ~$5 billion
> in losses, which would be slightly more than one
> domain-industry unit of value, and WHOIS is crucial to
> fighting it.
>
> source:
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-lloyds-report/global-cyber-attack-could-spur-53-billion-in-losses-lloyds-of-london-idUSKBN1A20AB
>
> source:
> https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/domain-name-industry
>
> source:
> https://www.csoonline.com/article/3195010/security/bec-attacks-have-hit-thousands-top-5-billion-in-losses-globally.html
>
> Remember, the whole point of GDPR is to force companies to
> act with more social responsibility.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Rubens Kuhl
> <rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2018, at 20:49, John Horton
> <john.horton at legitscript.com
> <mailto:john.horton at legitscript.com>> wrote:
>
> Hmm, well, perhaps it's because I work for a
> company that processes quite a bit of data with a
> combination of algorithms and some human review,
> but I feel pretty confident that there are ways to
> simplify that with magic algorithms and forms.
>
> Magic algorithms are fine in pattern detection because
> there is always a human review at some point or the
> cost of error is low, like in raising an abuse case
> that contains wording like supposedly", "allegedly"
> etc. In this case, every false negative comes with a
> tremendous liability.
>
> Also, if machine-learning technology and deep pockets
> for lawsuits become a requirement for being a
> registrar, you can count on the number of registrars
> dropping to single digits.
>
> Rubens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> _________________________________
> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180215/e682ce43/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list