IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> Sat, 24 July 2010 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <tme@americafree.tv>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D843A688B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7UFJ6eRFUQP for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CB73A6848 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F12813D2DE; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <149D0413-D697-4F07-B29F-2FD68F759C31@americafree.tv>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100724032659.GD6015@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:59:49 -0400
References: <20100721223355.1728.qmail@joyce.lan> <4C478C82.2020804@dcrocker.net> <BEB6C207-1308-40F2-814E-33C53985CB5D@americafree.tv> <4C478F42.6060804@dcrocker.net> <20100724032659.GD6015@shinkuro.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:59:46 -0000

On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 05:22:26PM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> We certainly live with some complicated arrangements...
>
> Without wishing to weigh in on whether the privacy policy is a good
> idea, I think that "living with" was an important part of John
> Levine's argument up-thread.  In many cases, the actual governing
> organization that actually gets hold of the bit of PII isn't the IETF
> at all.  It's the privacy policy of _that_ organization that's going
> to govern for real the treatment of the PII.  This makes the analogy
> between the IETF and other privacy-policy-having organizations weaker.
> So if you think having a privacy policy is a good idea, and you think
> so because other organizations have such a policy, you'll need to show
> why the analogy between the IETF and other organizations is strong in
> relevant ways.

I must admit that I am not following this. What organization are you  
talking about ?
ISOC ? The IETF Trust ? Something else ?

Further, I can't see why the IETF can have a privacy policy or why  
that would be
different from having a patent policy or, for that matter, a NOTE WELL.

Regards
Marshall

>
> A
>
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email