Leo Vegoda wrote:
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.
I see some conflict here between your right not to be identified and my right to know who is spamming me. Maybe I want to complain directly to the spammer. But if I have to go to the ISP and ask them to identify the end user they may just say "sorry we can't give out confidential customer information". Then I have to go to court of the police to even write a letter of complaint to the spammer. The RIPE DB is a registry of IP Address information. If we hide the bottom layer we change the whole concept. cheers denis
Regards,
Leo