[db-wg] IRT object postal address (denis walker)

As cybercriminal i wholeheartedly support the idea of removing all personal
data from the RIPE DB.

That would make my life so much easier.

--
William

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:00 PM <db-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:

> Send db-wg mailing list submissions to
>         db-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         db-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         db-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of db-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: IRT object postal address (denis walker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:41:58 +0200
> From: denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com>
> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] IRT object postal address
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAKvLzuE+RoNgGXL8TU3r4E5dOtOd3uweB9UzFJhgnOmpBruU+g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Ronald
>
> (For those who don't read long emails...) The bottom line is that this
> proposal recommends to remove postal addresses of contacts, not
> publish the 'full' postal address of natural persons holding
> resources, replace personal data with business data and generally
> bring the contents of the RIPE Database into line with the defined
> purposes.
>
> ---
> Now to answer Ronald's points...
>
> You have your own (hidden) agenda Ronald, which is fine. But don't
> expect everyone to fall into line behind you. Most people know your
> tactics. Repeat the same nonsense and conspiratorial theories over and
> over and over again until people believe they must be true. You lock
> onto a phrase or even a word and create an entire fear mongering story
> around it. Then keep asking the same irrelevant questions and
> demanding answers. This is not how to have a professional discussion,
> it is a Trump/Johnson style campaign.
>
> Let's kill off some of your fear stories. I am NOT against
> accountability, NOT helping cybercriminals, NOT proposing anonymity,
> NOT obfuscating half the database, NOT proposing secrecy and NOT
> avoiding transparency.
>
> As for GDPR, the only person obsessed with it is you Ronald. It is not
> even mentioned in the proposed policy text. You use it to confuse all
> discussions on the content of the database. GDPR is only one of the
> factors concerning the content of the RIPE Database. There are defined
> purposes for the database. As the RIPE Database Task Force pointed
> out, we should minimise the amount of data needed to fulfil those
> defined purposes. That is the overriding principle governing what
> should go into the database and what remains in the database.
>
> Most people did accept that in order to resolve internet operational
> issues (one of the main purposes of the database) no one is going to
> visit or post a letter to a contact in the RIPE Database. Therefore
> contacts don't need postal addresses. Whilst you may feel there is a
> need for a postal address for a contact for an IRT object, as Nick
> said, the opinions of CSIRT teams are more relevant.
>
> You have said yourself many times that the database is full of
> garbage. When you demand irrelevant data and force people to enter
> information they prefer not to provide which is not even covered by
> the database purposes, you increase the chances of some people
> entering false or misleading information. The only 'crusade' I am on
> is to bring the contents of the RIPE Database into line with the
> minimum information required to fulfil the defined purposes of the
> database and any legal requirements. We can have a healthy discussion
> on interpretations of that minimum information, but we should not be
> arguing over the principle. Forcing people (with mandatory attributes)
> to enter 'interesting' but not relevant information leads to a corrupt
> and diluted database that is less useful to anyone. Even optional
> attributes that are not relevant, dilute the important information.
>
> You can wish for any information you like to be in the RIPE Database
> Ronald, but if it is not essential for the defined purposes, it is not
> going to be there. Feel free to propose your own policies to change
> the purposes of the database and store certified photos of all
> contacts and their families if you believe that is necessary for your
> use of the database...or set up your own database.
>
> cheers
> denis
> proposal author
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 06:01, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
> <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> >
> > In message <
> CAKw1M3MEHHC63+BfS7P365F0Cw6hcGuOKKq0ZaTS+evtdiZDoQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > =?UTF-8?Q?Cynthia_Revstr=C3=B6m?= <me at cynthia.re> wrote:
> >
> > >> *)  Why is the hiding of information even a priority?
> > >
> > >Hiding information is good from a privacy standpoint so you have to
> > >weigh the benefit of having the data public against the privacy
> > >implications of publishing it. (and consider any potential legal
> > >issues/requirements)
> >
> > Transparency is good from an accountability standpoint.  And in my
> opinion,
> > we have far far too little accountability on the Internet.  Practically
> > every day now one can find stories about "hackers" and "cybercriminals"
> > and everyone just shrugs and goes back to work as if this is the way that
> > thing have to be, or that they are supposed to be.
> >
> > My position is simple:  If youy want to be anonymous, then get yourself a
> > pseudonym account on Twitter, or Facebook, or YouTube, or whatever, and
> > then blast away.  Or alternatively, get yourself a domain name with all
> > of the WHOIS data redacted and then arrange wweb site hosting for that,
> > either on one IP of one hosting company, or several.  But somewhere up
> > the chain there needs to be accountability, always.  It is *not* a God-
> > given right to have an IP address block or an ASN.  It is a privilege.
> > And that special privilege should be reserved for those who are willing
> > to be held accountable for what goes on upon their networks.
> >
> > You and Denis are trying to _remove_ accountability from the equation,
> and
> > I remain steadfast in asserting that this will only benefit criminals.
> >
> > >> *)  Are these deliberate obfsucation steps still being justified on
> the
> > >> basis of GDPR, or do you now accept as fact that GDPR is irrelevant in
> > >> the context of the RIPE data base, and that it does not currently
> compel
> > >> RIPE to make any changes to the public WHOIS data base whatsoever?
> > >
> > >Denis has already mentioned in an email regarding 2022-01 that he will
> > >not address any more GDPR issues until there has been a legal review
> > >as many of us are not lawyers.
> >
> > I'm sure that I saw someone post here quite recently that he had checked
> with
> > RIPE legal already, and had already been assured that RIPE is _not_
> facing
> > any current or imminent legal jeopardy with the status quo as it now
> exists,
> > either in relation to GDPR or in relation to any other applicable law or
> > regulation.  If you need me to do so, I will find that posting in the
> archives
> > and I'll copy it here.
> >
> > >While I can't speak for Denis, you have not convinced me that GDPR is
> > >somehow irrelevant
> >
> > I don't see how or why it should be incumbant upon either me or anyone
> else
> > to persuade either you or Denis that no change needs to be made.  You
> and he
> > are putting forward and supporting this proposal for a _change_ in the
> > current status quo.  It is thus necessary for you folks to make a
> persuasive
> > case that a change _is_ needed, rather than for me or anyone else to
> make a
> > case that it isn't.
> >
> > >> *)  If the goal is to hide information, then why not just take the
> entire
> > >> RIPE WHOIS data base offline and hide the whole thing behind some
> sort of
> > >> permission-wall that can only be pierced with a legal warrant?
> > >>
> > >> (That last question is, of course, the essential point, since that
> endpoint
> > >> seems rather clearly to be the direction in which this is all headed.)
> > >
> > >This question is not really an "essential point" in my opinion as
> > >there is a big difference between hiding postal addresses and hiding
> > >abuse email addresses and route(6) objects.
> >
> > You are doing just what Denis has done so far in relation to this whole
> > thing... You are evading the question.  If transparency is "bad" and
> > secrecy is "good" then why not take that general principal to its final
> > and logical conclusion?  Why not just take the whole WHOIS data base
> > offline entirely?
> >
> > It's a simple question.  I'd like to see either you or Denis answer it,
> > rather than evade it.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > rfg
> >
> > --
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
> change your subscription options, please visit:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of db-wg Digest, Vol 131, Issue 14
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20220722/0666c9cd/attachment.html>