Re: IETF privacy policy - update

Paul, Sam,

I understand your arguments to bascially be "we've never had an  
internal privacy problem here at the IETF, and as far as I know no one  
decides not to participate because of the lack of a privacy policy, so  
we have no need to follow basic standards of privacy hygiene."
What would you say to a network operator who maintains an open mail  
relay, but says "we've never had any spam abuse on my open relay, and  
as far as I know I have never lost any business because of my relay,  
and so I have no need to follow basic standards of SMTP hygiene (as  
set out in RFCs 2505 and 5321)"?
I would say to the network operator that (a) open mail relays create a  
risk of abuse, (b) industry best practices discourage such relays to  
help minimize that risk, and so (c) unless you have a really really  
good reason to maintain an open relay, you should not do so.  And if  
the network operator were a prominent participant in the industry, I  
would add that maintaining an open relay sets a really bad example for  
other industry players and developers.
In the IETF privacy context, as far as I know, we have not had any  
significant internal privacy problems at the IETF, probably because  
the powers-that-be are generally pretty thoughtful, careful people.   
And I have no idea whether anyone was so put off by the lack of a  
privacy policy as to reduce their participation IETF -- probably no  
one (but that is pretty unknowable).
But there is a risk -- indeed, as we see going into the next two IETF  
meetings, there is a growing risk -- that the IETF will be collecting  
information that could be misused, in ways that none of us can foresee  
now.  A privacy policy would not eliminate that risk, but it would  
help to guide future efforts to minimize privacy risk, and it would  
tell IETF site visitors how much they are tracked, etc., should they  
decide to use the site.
So I, at least, would say to the IETF that (a) not having a privacy  
policy increases the risk of a privacy mistake, (b) online best  
practices encourage having a privacy policy, and so (c) unless you  
have a really really good reason not to have a privacy policy, you  
should have one.  And because lots of developers look to the IETF for  
guidance in their work, I think the IETF's lack of a policy sets a bad  
example.
And I think it is possible that having a clear, public, and well- 
thought-out set of principles and policies to guide the IETF's  
collection, retention, and use of data might even reduce or at least  
constrain the debates we have on this list every year or two about  
IETF data collection and retention....  Thus, spending what you view  
as wasted cycles now may well reduce wasted cycles later.  But even if  
it does not, I think any organization that promulgates a series of  
documents named "Best Current Practices" (and hopes that people will  
pay attention to them) should itself be prepared to follow widely  
accepted "best current practices" for its operations, even if the  
participants of the organization find those practices to be outside of  
the core work of the group.
John


On Jul 7, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 3:49 PM -0400 7/7/10, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Generally when I look for an idea of whether work is a good idea I  
> > look
> > for a clear statement of benefit.  I'll admit that I don't find  
> > privacy
> > policies so valuable that I think everyone should have one.  So, I'll
> > ask how will or work be improved or what problem are we running into
> > that a privacy policy will solve?  If that cannot clearly we be
> > answered, we should not engage in this activity.
> At 3:51 AM +0000 7/7/10, John Levine wrote:
> > I think we all agree that having a privacy policy would be desirable,
> > in the sense that we are in favor of good, and opposed to evil.   
> > But I
> > don't know what it means to implement a privacy policy, and I don't
> > think anyone else does either.
> >
> > A privacy policy is basically a set of assertions about what the IETF
> > will do with your personal information.  To invent a strawman, let's
> > say that the privacy policy says that registration information will  
> > be
> > kept in confidence, and some newly hired clerk who's a little unclear
> > on the concept gives a list of registrants' e-mail addresses to a
> > conference sponsor so they can e-mail everyone an offer for a free
> > IETF tee shirt.
> >
> > Then what happens?  Is a privacy policy a contract, and if it is,  
> > what
> > remedies do IETF participants have for non-performance?  And if it's
> > not, and there aren't remedies, what's the point?
> Thank you, Sam and John.
>
> Do some people not come to IETF meetings because of the current null  
> privacy policy? Do they say less than they would have if we had a  
> typical non-null policy? If either of those two are answered yes,  
> would those people contribute better knowing that the IETF had a  
> policy but no real way to enforce it other than by apologizing when  
> it failed to follow the policy?
> If having a privacy policy, even one where there was no real  
> enforcement mechanism, was free, nearly everyone would want it.  
> Given that getting such a policy is not free, and will cause cycles  
> to be lost from other IETF work, is the tradeoff worth it? At this  
> point, I would say "no", but mostly because I don't know of anyone  
> who contributes less due to the current null policy.
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf