Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting

Rolf Winter <> Tue, 14 July 2015 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB751ACCF5 for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.788
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dau9aF1zO9YA for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (fly.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE [IPv6:2001:638:102:2::217:48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19FBF1ACDC1 for <>; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5301D6025; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:27:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0Fefnbf4CAFs; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] (pool8021x168-142.RZ.HS-Augsburg.DE []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37EB51D6018; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
To: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@Opus1.COM>,
References: <> <> <> <> <55A5182E.9000504@Opus1.COM>
From: Rolf Winter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:27:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55A5182E.9000504@Opus1.COM>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030105030601040202050603"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 93 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:27:57 -0000


I am not a lawyer so anything I say is solely based on common sense, 
which probably means that legally speaking I am wrong. Just for the 
folks that have not read the description of our experiment, we solely 
talk about broadcast data.

I have actually talked to our lawyer here, and her spontaneous 
suggestion was to ask whether one of the participants/sponsors from the 
Czech Republic could ask their lawyers/data protection officers if such 
an experiment would be OK under Czech Republic law? I found that a 
smashing idea. Anybody on this list who could help out?



Am 7/14/15 um 4:09 PM schrieb Joel M Snyder:
> On 7/14/15 3:51 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> You are doing an experiment.  It involves human subjects, since humans
>> are generating the traffic you will be monitoring.  You are not
>> obtaining their explicit permission.
> This would not be considered human subject experimentation. Simply 
> because humans are involved in an activity does not make it human 
> subject experimentation.
> You have to be actually interacting (or otherwise affecting) the human 
> subject.  Gathering data passively is not considered human subject 
> experimentation, unless the data are PPI.
> You *could* argue that the data being collected could possibly be 
> private data, since a naive Wi-Fi user might have some expectation 
> that their Wi-Fi data were not being watched, and thus the information 
> would be private.  This was used as an argument to condemn Google for 
> capturing Wi-Fi data as they drove around.
> However, you could also argue that at a conference, in a hotel, there 
> is no expectation of privacy of the Wi-Fi data.  And you could argue 
> doubly (or triply) so that IETF users as a community are not so naive 
> as to expect their Wi-Fi data to be private.
> jms
> (PhD, veteran of human subjects committee wars...)