IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 0CAA63A68A4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.685
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3]
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 cQYnDEL+aJr5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918993A695F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 66148 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2010 23:25:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=k1007; bh=tu3hyRtQfyR6RW3nv9LX0PVgdYO/OQUwBvK9Z6YBMDM=; b=p6atHxcJSZKRXh0jnbY6SpjREzrzKGkolp2pqr+MKOJkjcLsK9MfyeBpHwN/CBYBKMehHOnR/Tc9J1FX+7UUc0IGNGe0yyNt/8vf+W95+x2XRbIULP7o4tHtczITC/EYPTvuMQQjFBZbb+JJGKsHCjTVMzhr4DZ/J+JfSjiDEe8=
Received: (ofmipd 64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 21 Jul 2010 23:25:20 -0000
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:30:30 +0200
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007220126220.2579@joyce.lan>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5fyqAenZU6PfLw2Ouy0jk-HdicK_WHweODmjq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <23A0C2B7-9EAC-4C84-8D4F-C18FB2590991@cdt.org> <20100721223355.1728.qmail@joyce.lan> <AANLkTin5fyqAenZU6PfLw2Ouy0jk-HdicK_WHweODmjq@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
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: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:30:19 -0000

> Exceptionalism really does not work very well as a legal strategy.

I'm not saying that the IETF is unique in the universe, but I am saying 
that all of the arguments advanced so far for privacy policies are 
relevant to corporations with employees and revenue and contacts, which 
the IETF definitely is not.

Someone pointed out that the IAOC, which does have a legal existence, 
could find a privacy policy useful, which is not unreasonable, but I do 
think that anyone who proposes such a policy should at least be familiar 
with the (non)structure of the IETF and identify what aspects of it apply 
to what four-letter bits.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email