Hi,
<de-lurk>
my name is Frank Habicht, not having enable in RIPE region, but Eastern
Africa and active in AfriNIC etc...
Wanted to stay out of this, but to me this thread is turning sad and
"funny" at the same time...
On 29/07/2022 18:24, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
...
The legal team will have to answer this question but is facilitating a
service that leads to the identification of an individual the same (in
law) as providing the PII directly?
Guess we have to accept that the legal team rules supreme, but I fail to
understand how this "facilitating a service that leads to..." is the
problem.
To me this seems similar to the next building having a sign "BANK" on it
- that facilitates bank robberies (illegal activities) just the same.
Does it do any harm to review the current wording of the purposes and
how they can be interpreted and perhaps make them more explicitly cover
how the database is used?
can at the very least the operationally useful status quo be maintained
until all the committees have finished the review?
please.
PS: i believe some content providers operate routers, and i believe some
network operators can have an operational interest in geography.
I also believe that a geofeed in a /29 inetnum can point to data of /20
granularity - covering multiple customers in one city. which should be
highly legal.
Thanks,
Frank Habicht
<lurk>
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
