Is there a reason that the anonymous IDs are opt-in? Why not have all
the IDs be anonymous?
On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Iljitsch:
This is useful, but not quite what I was asking. Clearly, the above
means that the logs exist during the meeting, while we are at the
host
venue. I think it is safe to say that under some legal regimes, a
government could require the delivery of such existing logs to them.
I would very much appreciate assurances that such logging will not
occur,
and that there will be no "live" feed of such information to third
parties,
such as government or law enforcement.
A week's worth of correlation between my MAC address and the IP
addresses
that I exchange encrypted information with is not something I think
any
government needs to have.
Of course if a government has cause to believe that a given user is
misbehaving they still have the option to talk to the NOC staff and
have them obtain information about this user.
As I said in my reply to Andrew, no matter where a meeting is held, we
are subject to the laws of that location. Nothing new there.
We have received no requests for the kind of "live" feeds that you
suggest. I'm quite sure that the NOC Team and the IAOC would push
back
is such a request were made.
Again, the use of anonymous registration IDs is available to you and
anyone that wants one. If you are concerned about the logs, then you
should use one.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf