Re: [dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals

[Leo Vegoda <]

On 17 Jul 2007, at 14:04, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

[...]

> > I doubt person objects would be, either. That's what organisation
> > objects, do.
> Maybe, but in many cases it would simply shift the problem from the  
> left
> hand to the right hand. Take my case at home:
>
> I have been assigned 8 addresses for my ADSL connection by my  
> Telekom Op.
>
> With your approach I could easily hide my personal contact information
> because that can/has to go into "my" organisation: object. In the  
> end it
> is the same set of (personal) information under a different heading.
There is an inevitable tension between the needs of LEAs and the  
rules set down in data protection legislation. Unless there is a law  
requiring contact information for consumer customers to be entered  
into the RIPE database I would encourage us to set policies that  
comply with data protection laws.

I think that in the vast majority of cases there is no need to list a  
contact from the customer end of a DSL or other consumer service.  
Noting that the assignment has been made is important but identifying  
the contact information is unlikely to be helpful in most situations.  
Listing the ISP's contact information is the right approach in the  
majority of cases, I think. The ISP obviously knows the end user's  
contact information and can supply it when appropriate.

Regards,

Leo