In message <cakvlzug47-by0vn59+kkcgj0p4332j7r-q0wrfnomhhtavr...@mail.gma il.com>, denis walker <ripede...@gmail.com> writes
>They were very clear that the address of resource holders is also very >important to LEAs in their investigations. So I am going to make a >controversial suggestion here. Currently we have two categories of >registry data, Private and Public. The Public data is available to >LEAs and their use of it is covered by agreed purposes of the RIPE >Database defined in the Terms & Conditions. For Private data they need >to get a court order, which is an expensive and time consuming >process. Suppose we add a middle category Restricted data. This could >be data like the address of natural persons who hold resources. Data >that is now public but we are proposing to take out of the public >domain. We could allow LEAs (and maybe other recognised public safety >agencies) to continue to have access to this Restricted data without a >court order. (There are technical ways of doing this which are out of >scope for this discussion.) You appear to be under the impression that Internet security and safety arises out of the activities of Law Enforcement Agencies whereas in practice private individuals and companies do the vast majority of this work -- generating referrals to LEAs when it is appropriate for action to be taken that only they can perform Moving to a situation where only LEAs can see what is currently available in RIPE whois data would be a very retrograde step and would seriously impact the security and stability of the Internet. -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
