Re: [Pearg] draft-irtf-pearg-safe-internet-measurement review, implied consent

Hi,

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 at 10:18, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
>
> > Il 10/07/2023 21:58 CEST Nick Doty <ndoty=40cdt.org@dmarc.ietf.org> ha
> scritto:
> >
> > Similarly, under European and similar data protection law, consent
> > isn't universal, it's not that every data processing takes place with
> > some kind of consent, but rather that you need informed consent when
> > something of a particular weight is happening and there isn't another
> > justification and in other cases it's reasonable for you to do the
> > processing without getting consent (because it's not personal data,
> > say), not that you did have some implied consent.
>
> Well, if you get a direct connection from the host that you are gathering
> data from, so that you can see the IP address, then it's already personal
> data - the IP address certainly is, as it's often a pretty precise
> identifier at least of a household. And if you have personal data, in
> Europe you need consent unless you have a clear "legitimate interest" which
> is not just about making more money. (Whether getting consent is
> "practical" or not is legally irrelevant.)
>
> The draft should possibly include some recommendations about this; if you
> only aggregate the information, then you have no personal data any more,
> but still you got them at the start of your processing and so you needed
> legal grounds for that anyway.
>
> (This is a current, ongoing discussion in Italy: the government's official
> web analytics platform was recently moved onto AWS servers and so became
> incompliant with GDPR, at least until the new EU-US data privacy framework
> comes into effect and survives the upcoming legal challenges.)
>
> The above problem could be addressed by adopting the "oblivious"
> connection model, i.e. having a proxy in the middle that gets the IP
> address but cannot see the content, while the actual telemetry server only
> gets the content but not the IP address, and the two parties are mutually
> independent and do not exchange data. This is also something that could be
> mentioned as an option, but you could rather ask for help to the people
> championing that kind of model.
>

The draft is meant to be thorough and at the guidance level. Seems that
this suggestion would fall under the aggregate guidance.

Since there are so many methods I’m not sure whether we should elaborate
the current practices, also assuming additional techniques might be
developed over time.

It’s a RG draft so if folks want to include an elaborated list, let’s do
that.

This doesn’t entirely address the incomplete implied consent subsection.

-Mallory

>
> --
> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
> vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com
> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
>
> --
> Pearg mailing list
> Pearg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg
>
-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780