August 15, 2018 at 9:20 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item What Data is Really Needed?
August 16, 2018 at 2:48 am
Hi Steve
Re ICANN and GDPR
It is a little scary that a court, with no expertise in some industry (Internet domain registration, in this case), will decide if there is an actual business need. After all, can a lawyer or judge really understand what data a business needs in their daily activities?
The thing is, it's not about business needs (or more specifically, ICANN's needs). ICANN has had literally years to organise itself to comply with GDPR and data privacy, but consistently failed to do so.
For example:
As an organization based in the United States, it has – for 15 years – ignored warnings from European regulators about the legality of its Whois data service – where domain owner and operators' names, phone numbers, and email and home addresses are published online.
For a more complete explanation, please see the article in The Register:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/07/icann_whois_gdpr/
August 16, 2018 at 6:10 am
I'm not sure why resolving issues should be considered any more scary than leaving the issue left to some other less certain resolution.
412-977-3526 call/text
August 16, 2018 at 7:41 am
It is a little scary that a court, with no expertise in some industry (Internet domain registration, in this case), will decide if there is an actual business need. After all, can a lawyer or judge really understand what data a business needs in their daily activities?
This stuck out to me. I too am concerned when I see any large institution e.g. government or corporation enforce restrictions. In the US there were famous interviews by people in Congress describing their understanding of the internet. I don't recall the particulars but it involved something like "pipes getting clogged with porn and gambling". If you don't believe me or want some laughs then type this into YouTube search and enjoy: "congress internet pipes". The first few will be from Zuck explaining to congress how the internet works. Later there are some gems.
August 16, 2018 at 8:01 am
I don't think the court should decide what data a company needs to have.
Using that data in a manner that is consistent with what is agreed between the company and the data subject is something the EU decided would go to the court.
I did not read the links provided, just what Steve wrote.
If three contact points, are required for the company to manage domain registrations, what business is that of the court. Do those three contact points need to be publicly available?
I don't know. Am I comfortable with my information available on registered domains, no. I provide it for the web presence, that is what I agreed to when I registered the domains. I put contact info directly on the hosted site of the domain. Public and free.
August 16, 2018 at 8:08 am
Jeff Mlakar - Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:41 AMIt is a little scary that a court, with no expertise in some industry (Internet domain registration, in this case), will decide if there is an actual business need. After all, can a lawyer or judge really understand what data a business needs in their daily activities?
This stuck out to me. I too am concerned when I see any large institution e.g. government or corporation enforce restrictions. In the US there were famous interviews by people in Congress describing their understanding of the internet. I don't recall the particulars but it involved something like "pipes getting clogged with porn and gambling". If you don't believe me or want some laughs then type this into YouTube search and enjoy: "congress internet pipes". The first few will be from Zuck explaining to congress how the internet works. Later there are some gems.
But it's not corporations or congressmen and women making the decision. It's a judge, who hears expert evidence and considers arguments from all sides before making up his or her mind. That's why, in civilised countries, we separate the executive and the legislature from the judiciary.
John
August 16, 2018 at 8:13 am
aig - Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:01 AMI don't think the court should decide what data a company needs to have.
Using that data in a manner that is consistent with what is agreed between the company and the data subject is something the EU decided would go to the court.
I did not read the links provided, just what Steve wrote.
If three contact points, are required for the company to manage domain registrations, what business is that of the court. Do those three contact points need to be publicly available?
I don't know. Am I comfortable with my information available on registered domains, no. I provide it for the web presence, that is what I agreed to when I registered the domains. I put contact info directly on the hosted site of the domain. Public and free.
No, the EU didn't decide that anything would go to court. It provided for the court to be available to arbitrate in the event of a dispute. Therefore it's very much the business of the court. Who else is going to decide when two parties can't agree between themselves?
John
August 16, 2018 at 8:14 am
Jeff Mlakar - Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:41 AMIt is a little scary that a court, with no expertise in some industry (Internet domain registration, in this case), will decide if there is an actual business need. After all, can a lawyer or judge really understand what data a business needs in their daily activities?
This stuck out to me. I too am concerned when I see any large institution e.g. government or corporation enforce restrictions. In the US there were famous interviews by people in Congress describing their understanding of the internet. I don't recall the particulars but it involved something like "pipes getting clogged with porn and gambling". If you don't believe me or want some laughs then type this into YouTube search and enjoy: "congress internet pipes". The first few will be from Zuck explaining to congress how the internet works. Later there are some gems.
As scary as that might be - I don't think we can just blindly trust individual organization to have the public's best interests in mind. The big 5 on data gathering all have a LOT of blood on their hands as to strong-arming everyone into supplying data they ultimately do NOT need to run.
Also- it's not like Zuck has a great track record at safeguarding our data. He looked more than a predator than anything else, at least from my set of cheap seats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
August 16, 2018 at 8:31 am
August 16, 2018 at 8:36 am
I completely agree with you, especially as to how well judges and adjudicate technical issues such as domain registration. On a podcast I watch F5 Live they've discussed patent law here in the US. I'm not up on it like they are, but according to them US courts have made some really strange decisions, with respect to patent laws. (They're improving, though.) The vlogger's point is that the issues in adjudicating patent law and the issues involved is so complex, that people with no technical background at all are not going to know what they're deciding upon.
Kindest Regards, Rod Connect with me on LinkedIn.
August 16, 2018 at 8:40 am
ZZartin - Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:31 AMSounds like that's more a debate about how open the internet should be and whether you should be able to register domains and hide behind anonymity.
Agreed, it's an interesting debate, as an intellectual exercise. But sadly one that's irrelevant to the main topic.
If you read-up on how ICANN dug the hole it's now in, you might see what I mean.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/07/icann_whois_gdpr/
The wider issue is organisations (like ICANN and Facebook) operating in Europe but trying to ignore European rules.
By the way, that article is written by an American, not a Brit. 🙂
August 16, 2018 at 9:44 am
Matt Miller (4) - Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:14 AMAs scary as that might be - I don't think we can just blindly trust individual organization to have the public's best interests in mind. The big 5 on data gathering all have a LOT of blood on their hands as to strong-arming everyone into supplying data they ultimately do NOT need to run.
Also- it's not like Zuck has a great track record at safeguarding our data. He looked more than a predator than anything else, at least from my set of cheap seats.
This is where I tend to lean. I don't think regulation and law on what data should be used are necessary, but I do lean towards some independent authority listening to the argument and applying some rational process to make a decision. I would also like to see a little more education of any judges or arbitration councils on technical subjects, as more than a few judges, at least in the US, don't quite seem to grasp the larger implications of their cases. It seems they get confused or constrained by applying 19th century analog law or precedent to 21st century digital issues.
August 16, 2018 at 9:47 am
I tend to think that ICANN is wrong here, and that they ought to respect privacy of domain holders. That being said, I also think we need to have some way of allowing contact, or perhaps ensuring that even with public anonymity, there are some avenues for recourse with regard to copyright violation or other illegal activities.
August 16, 2018 at 10:00 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:44 AMThis is where I tend to lean. I don't think regulation and law on what data should be used are necessary, but I do lean towards some independent authority listening to the argument and applying some rational process to make a decision. I would also like to see a little more education of any judges or arbitration councils on technical subjects, as more than a few judges, at least in the US, don't quite seem to grasp the larger implications of their cases. It seems they get confused or constrained by applying 19th century analog law or precedent to 21st century digital issues.
Right - the less abstraction the better. Doctors should make medical decisions not 3rd party insurance or government. The more direct the better. W3C and ICANN do well.
August 16, 2018 at 10:03 am
John Mitchell-245523 - Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:08 AMBut it's not corporations or congressmen and women making the decision. It's a judge, who hears expert evidence and considers arguments from all sides before making up his or her mind. That's why, in civilised countries, we separate the executive and the legislature from the judiciary.John
Yes I get the concept of a judicial system. That judge likely has no idea about anything of substance concerning the matter. The judge cannot tell when an "expert" (interesting to ponder) feeds them BS. Nor can you be expected to have competence from a few months of testimony. I would prefer some other kind of private arbitration that are less abstract than a court system. Ideally the players in the game would self-regulate. I err on keeping it as close to that as I can as a best practice.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply