Re: [93attendees] Network experiment during the meeting

[Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

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?

Best,

Rolf

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...)
>
>