IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Sat, 24 July 2010 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 E47CF3A6971 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 uKqnKSvq34tt for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9790A3A6966 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [212.238.38.8] (ip212-238-38-8.hotspotsvankpn.com [212.238.38.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6O4UQL0024678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:30:34 -0700
Message-ID: <4C4A6C60.5000404@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:30:24 +0200
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea
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> <149D0413-D697-4F07-B29F-2FD68F759C31@americafree.tv> <20100724041157.GG6015@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100724041157.GG6015@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 04:30:29 -0000

On 7/24/2010 6:11 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I am not personally convinced that another policy is a good idea,
> especially if it has no practical consequences;


At this point, I'd go further and say /specifically/ if it has no practical 
consequences.

To the point:

A 'policy' does not mean much if it does not affect behaviors.  If instead it is 
to affect behaviors, then those behaviors need to be specified.

The IETF has people who act as its agents.  Some of those agents have access to 
information that can be considered sensitive.

We should stop talking about this topic as if we were lawyers and start talking 
as if we cared about how agents of the IETF handle sensitive information.  That 
is what I understand the practical purpose of a privacy policy to be.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email