Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets

Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13DB21F849D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.243
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8VEtjPyCrMiO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C9C21F847B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (c-98-234-216-143.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.216.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3N5fhDs046015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:41:44 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4F94EB97.3080906@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:41:43 -0700
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
Subject: Re: Future Handling of Blue Sheets
References: <2AC114D8-E97B-47A0-B7E0-9EF016DCB09F@ietf.org> <4F94D01F.3070102@gondrom.org> <DDB8050A-7A04-4A0F-A364-0E3E511DCB43@vigilsec.com> <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F94E4AB.5080706@gondrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:41:46 -0000

On 4/22/12 22:12 , Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> Hi Russ,
> 
> thank you for the information.
> In this case, my preference would be not to publish the blue sheets with
> the proceedings.
> 
> Reasoning:
> The blue sheet data can at some point be used to determine movement
> profiles of individual attendees at the meeting to a finer granularity
> than today and therefore can be an issue for privacy (even though I
> recognize that this is a public meeting). The fact that we "may reduce"
> the amount of subpoenas is a viable reason, still personal data should
> be handled as conservative as possible.

What property of the blue sheet makes it personal data.

> Without a significant and
> measurable economic advantage by the publication, we should rather not
> publish this data with the proceedings.
> (My underlying assumption is of course that currently our cost of
> subpoenas is not forbiddingly high compared to overall conference costs.
> If that assumption proves to be false, I would have to rethink my
> statement above.)
> 
> Besides that:
> - am agnostic on whether we ask for email address or not (in the end I
> gave up on hiding my email address as a way to reduce spam...)
> - even without publication, we could still scan the blue sheets and
> maintain them in an electronic archive without keeping the hard copies
> (please note there may be legal requirements on procedures of handling
> non-paper copies that are later to be used in a court of law).
> - And if we would go to a Hiroshima/RFID model, the discovery in
> subpoenas could be much easier compared to scanned paper documents with
> handwritten names.
> 
> Just my 5cents.
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/04/12 12:41, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Hi Tobias.
>>
>> I would like to make them available as part of the proceedings so that
>> anyone can find them and view them.  This _may_ reduce subpoenas for
>> the blue sheets in the future.
>>
>> Many people have expressed similar thoughts about the RFID
>> experiment.  Last time we investigated a system for IETF meetings, it
>> was quite expensive.  I'll ask again to see if this has changed.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Russ,
>>>
>>> from a privacy perspective: may I ask for what purpose you propose to
>>> publish the blue sheets (with the names of all WG session attendees)
>>> with the proceedings?
>>> AFAIK, at the moment the blue sheets are basically available on
>>> request especially in case of IP questions. What would lead to the
>>> proposal to publish the list of names of attendees always with the
>>> proceedings?
>>>
>>> Best regards, Tobias
>>>
>>>
>>> Ps.: btw. though I might be the only one, but I liked the blue sheet
>>> replacement experiment (RFID) in Hiroshima...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/04/12 22:31, IETF Chair wrote:
>>>> At IETF 83, we had a discussion about the future of blue sheets,
>>>> many spoke at the mic in support of the proposal.  There has been
>>>> very little discussion on the mail list.  However, all of the
>>>> discussion that I have see has been very supportive.
>>>>
>>>> The suggestion is three blue sheet changes:
>>>> 1.  No longer ask for email address;
>>>> 2.  Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for
>>>> the WG session; and
>>>> 3.  Discard paper blue sheets after scanning.
>>>>
>>>> Please speak up if you think this is the wrong thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>    Russ
>