ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF privacy policy - still a bad idea

2010-07-24 12:03:07

On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:36 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Good grief.

Indeed.  Do we agree that this means we're done?

I'm not opposed to the IETF having a privacy policy separate from ISOC's; I'm 
also not opposed to simply using ISOC's. Whatever we use, I think we should 
agree to it.

What I don't understand is the amount of arm wrestling that happens on this 
list. If I were to assert that the sky was blue, someone would want to know the 
frequency of the color, and someone else would report that the sky as s/he 
observed it was grey. The discussion would last for weeks, with the person who 
observed that it was grey periodically reporting a change in status.

I think we are done if we have agreed on a privacy policy. That could mean that 
we have agreed that there is no policy (and were willing to, as a result, stop 
screaming about the privacy implications of every little thing that cropped up; 
we have RFCs that have arisen from such rants), agreed to use ISOC's policy 
(see http://www.isoc.org/help/privacy/), have agreed to the one Alissa has 
proposed, or have agreed to something else. At this point, I'm not sure we 
agree on anything in particular.

I read Alissa's proposal. I might have a few nit points, and back when the 
thread was about that proposal I thought some others had interesting points. On 
the whole, it is a privacy policy I could subscribe to, and those points might 
improve it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf