Re: Proposed IETF Privacy Policy for Review

Alissa Cooper <> Tue, 29 March 2016 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C227212DCD1 for <>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=zti8NtRt; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=E7OWZsrN
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UhTjTmudGIEK for <>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA2A212DD48 for <>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331FC22DAB for <>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:34:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=snCRp eWru3T9O/RjjgiT6Id3xRA=; b=zti8NtRtyZwTPkND6M4fRt7bxfqreYrNNfdhY 2lAsg7JtWFBz5Bp8/7zXd4EMtZsfEyFbWV0nxNq7GoB7EJGBDwZqWb35Y80t0m0B BhWAVAoZR6XtMEQsfabzrabzQwCbvoNAtIV90bZ7qefAOiqR67XVxdWPnJYy1Vil kyACfw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=snCRpeWru3T9O/RjjgiT6Id3xRA=; b=E7OWZ srN6hAVzKDjP8aTGUXTFvijxG7BqWdNz0lJ651QyGDoEr4tUzJwGB7X3zDbMt+xe yYU366OyY+WAyRveIQdzoknVRvGIMBl3FQtXCMt6iXQFZXytvOu4TuVgUW+9IJIL dqwqZVQmjmZzGkku2tHn8PXl5hGx+J4fFqRhls=
X-Sasl-enc: SoHsc8djdewErWv5hlsyC9oPgKeQNJ4EG6eWujcJ45gC 1459272858
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 877FAC00018; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:34:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4BFC6888-9174-46B7-A726-8CB7D4ABCE29"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Privacy Policy for Review
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:34:56 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Announcement List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:27:54 -0000

Thanks for putting this together. Having attempted this once before [1], I’m glad to see it getting picked up again. I have a few comments to offer.

1) Non-public information
In addition to Adrian’s point about registration data, people provide details in order to obtain letters of invitation, which includes passport number, date of birth, etc. It’s important for people to know these details will not become public.

If we have data retention policies about the various types of non-public information, those should be stated.

2) Third-party sharing
I agree with Jordi that we need to say something about third-party data sharing and why we do or do not do it. It sounds like we do use a third-party payment processor, so it would not be accurate to say that we do not share any personal data with third parties. In any event I think a dedicated short section about sharing of personal data would be a good addition.

3) Tracking technologies
The policy talks about cookies and DNT (agree with Adam wrt to the DNT language), but many organizations these days are providing more detail about tracking technologies that they do and do not use, including flash cookies, local storage and other browser storage, pixels/beacons. I would suggest that we provide details about these (may be as simple as saying that we do not use them, or that we do and why).

4) Links to third party sites
Many privacy policies give a little information about the implications of clicking on links to third-party sites. I think that would be warranted here. E.g., if people join an IESG telechat using the webex link at <> then data about them will be collected by Cisco, and not just the audio of the meeting but other data governed by the WebEx privacy statement. I’m assuming this is the same for MeetEcho and other services one might arrive at by navigating from a site hosted at One or two sentences about using third-party tools from the IETF site or in the context of an IETF meeting would be warranted.

5) Other organizations
In addition to Lars’ point about the IRTF, I was wondering about the RFC Editor and

6) Jabber
I think it would be useful to be explicit about whether chats hosted on are covered by this policy.

7) Law enforcement requests
Some organizations are in a position to make stronger statements about how they deal with law enforcement requests than what is included here. I would suggest taking a look at Section 4 of the I-D linked below to see if we’re able to say anything about appropriateness of legal standards or notice to individuals.


[1] <>

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 10:02 AM, IETF Administrative Director <> wrote:
> The IAOC would like community input on a proposed IETF Privacy Policy.
> We are required by California law (and good net citizenship) to have
> an accurate privacy policy on our websites.  Counsel have reviewed
> this statement for compliance with US and EU privacy regulations.  
> The policy discusses the following:
>  1.  General – Most Personal Data Submitted to IETF Will Become Public
>  2.  You Consent to International Transmission of Your Data
>  3.  Exceptions – Information That We Do Not Release to the Public
>  4.  Security
>  5.  Children
>  6.  Inquiries
>  7.  Compliance
>  8.  Other Organizations
>  9.  Consent
> The proposed Privacy Policy is located here:
> The IAOC will consider all comments received by 31 March 2016.
> Ray Pelletier
> IETF Administrative Director