[NCAP-Discuss] Honeypot refresher

[Danny McPherson]

On 2020-04-30 12:39, Jeff Schmidt wrote:pital 'O' opinion?
> 
> I am not a lawyer; perhaps lawyers on this list can chime in.  My
> understanding is that a (Capital O) Opinion could be obtained by a
> party given a specific legal question/situation.  For example, ICANN
> could request an Opinion from their counsel regarding the
> issues/liabilities ICANN would face if it contractually required
> Registries to implement a technical honeypot as described.
> Verisign/Other Registries could request an Opinion from their counsel
> regarding the issues/liabilities if it were to direct data to such a
> honeypot or run such a honeypot.  Etc.
> 
> Of note, the discussions JAS had on this were pre-GDPR and its global
> friends.  I'm sure the legal/privacy issues have not gotten any better
> since then.  :-(  From my understanding of GDPR and friends, since the
> honeypot would solicit and collect PII from covered jurisdictions, it
> would be covered and subject to associated obligations and
> liabilities.  Which, at minimum, would create a bunch of (expensive)
> operational requirements like being able to query the data, delete
> myself, etc.  It gets really icky.

Yup, agreed.  The consequences are double-edged.

There are lots of other privacy changes that impact options here as 
well, which is part of what the SSAC was getting at in their questions, 
I believe.

E.g., from our observation space (i.e,. A & J since 2013) ~50-55% of 
root traffic now "benefits" from QNAME minimization.  The implications, 
well, the utility of unique observation space at the root v. other 
places in the ecosystem is certainly .. evolving.


-danny