In message <CAKvLzuFZDSk11aW=j0ufpNs5i+-2bmDHFkJ7pQfaUu-nhhEiFQ@mail.gmail.com> denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
During the conversion we had some time ago about contacts we concluded that no one is going to visit a contact or post them a letter.
No, "we" didn't. Unless you are using the term "we" here in the royal sense.
The IRT object also had a mandatory address attribute that is defined in the documentation as:
"This is a full postal address for the business contact represented by this irt object."
Does anyone think we actually need a postal address for a contact for a CSIRT team?
Yes. I do. You haven't yet answered _any_ of the fundamental questions I've asked about your ongoing efforts to hide information, to wit: *) Other than you and Cynthia, who is asking for and/or demanding these various deliberate obfuscation steps? *) Why is the hiding of information even a priority? *) What is the plan? Who is going to do the work, when, and what is the cost? *) 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? *) 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.) Regards, rfg P.S. I really don't care if I am the only one on this mailing list who is representing the interests of law enforcement and legitimate security researchers, or if I have to endure the slings and arrows that come with that. It's a tough job, but somebody has to push back against all of these subtle incremental efforts to hide the WHOIS by chipping away at it, little by little.