Re: [members-discuss] FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
Hi Brandon,
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer data
It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too)
It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active.
Your statement might be true and is also the problem with international ratification of Treaties and the underlying national implementation into the law. In this case, the question would be, what was the actual request from the Police, in order to get some more detail on it. If a preservation of information would have been enough or if a freeze of an account would be required. An online copy of the actual request from the KLPD in that case would be nice, where the personal details can be removed with black marker to protect the innocence etc. (blah blah .. ;-) ) I can only imagine that the operational system of RIPE would not have been designed to comply with anything like a Data retention act in mind. (Off-topic: Which in the Netherlands is still on 12 months btw.) So was the locking of the accounts towards the RIPE systems or freezing of the subnets, was it about the LIR portal, the associated maintainer passwd, or something else, like preventing them from doing changes to rev. dns. ? Or was it about avoiding transfers or changes in the Whois DB ? And instead of dealing with all the fuzz of the above, RIPE NCC might have taken the route of ... disable the accounts and wait ... Which is a perfectly good action imho as it would freeze the evidence present and the people involved would only notice it when they would actually need to make changes. Questions .. questions .. And only a few that know. Erik
Hi Brandon,
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer data
It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too)
It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active.
Your statement might be true and is also the problem with international ratification of Treaties and the underlying national implementation into the law. In this case, the question would be, what was the actual request from the Police, in order to get some more detail on it. If a preservation of information would have been enough or if a freeze of an account would be required. An online copy of the actual request from the KLPD in that case would be nice, where the personal details can be removed with black marker to protect the innocence etc. (blah blah .. ;-) ) I can only imagine that the operational system of RIPE would not have been designed to comply with anything like a Data retention act in mind. (Off-topic: Which in the Netherlands is still on 12 months btw.) So was the locking of the accounts towards the RIPE systems or freezing of the subnets, was it about the LIR portal, the associated maintainer passwd, or something else, like preventing them from doing changes to rev. dns. ? Or was it about avoiding transfers or changes in the Whois DB ? And instead of dealing with all the fuzz of the above, RIPE NCC might have taken the route of ... disable the accounts and wait ... Which is a perfectly good action imho as it would freeze the evidence present and the people involved would only notice it when they would actually need to make changes. Questions .. questions .. And only a few that know. Erik ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
http://depiratenpartij.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/brein-versus-xs4all-verplaat... -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven@cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Brandon,
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer data
It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too)
It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active.
Your statement might be true and is also the problem with international ratification of Treaties and the underlying national implementation into the law.
In this case, the question would be, what was the actual request from the Police, in order to get some more detail on it. If a preservation of information would have been enough or if a freeze of an account would be required. An online copy of the actual request from the KLPD in that case would be nice, where the personal details can be removed with black marker to protect the innocence etc. (blah blah .. ;-) )
I can only imagine that the operational system of RIPE would not have been designed to comply with anything like a Data retention act in mind. (Off-topic: Which in the Netherlands is still on 12 months btw.) So was the locking of the accounts towards the RIPE systems or freezing of the subnets, was it about the LIR portal, the associated maintainer passwd, or something else, like preventing them from doing changes to rev. dns. ? Or was it about avoiding transfers or changes in the Whois DB ?
And instead of dealing with all the fuzz of the above, RIPE NCC might have taken the route of ... disable the accounts and wait ... Which is a perfectly good action imho as it would freeze the evidence present and the people involved would only notice it when they would actually need to make changes.
Questions .. questions .. And only a few that know.
Erik
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
participants (3)
-
Erik Bais -
Erik Bais -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis