Re: [Doh] GDPR and DoH

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 06/04/2019 20:40, Brian Dickson wrote:
> It didn’t take me more than about 30 seconds of reading the linked
> article to get to the heart of the issue.

If that's the heart of the issue, then I remain unconvinced
that there is any real issue;-)

IOW, I'm still none the wiser as to what GDPR issue is
supposed to exist here.

> 
> It has to do with whether something that requires consent is a
> necessary part of the service or transaction.

Resolving DNS names is needed for a browser.

> It has been clearly demonstrated that browsers do not have to provide
> DNS resolution (since they have not done so for about 25 years).

Sure. But they are allowed innovate.

> This means that requiring the user to use the browser’s selection of
> DNS resolver, and implementing a DNS forwarder in the browser, would
> not be covered by the general acceptance of the browser’s terms. 

I don't believe the above is a good argument. First, "requiring
the user" isn't what's at issue, the situation of interest is
where DoH is on by default (which is not the current scenario).
Second, I've no idea what T&C's have to do with this - if there
is a GDPR issue, then T&C's that nobody reads can't avoid that.

S.

> In
> other words, an extra level of informed user consent would be
> required for GDPR, and not accepting that second set of terms should
> not prevent the use of the browser. Tying the two together would be a
> violation, at least as I understand it as explained by the link Jim
> provided.
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> If you need further advice on GDPR, consult a Data Protection 
>>> Authority or a lawyer who specialises in this field.
>>> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Doh mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>