Re: IETF privacy policy - update

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sam, Paul,

I did not mean to misrepresent your positions. I honestly understood them to be as I stated, but I was wrong. My apologies for that.

And yes, I agree with Paul that privacy policies are generally not worth all that much -- indeed, my organization (as well as, for example, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and others) argue that we need stronger laws/regulations in the U.S. because of the failure of the privacy policy approach. We want data collectors to be much more responsible (legally and otherwise) on privacy. But privacy policies reflect the barest minimum that any responsible organization should do.

It is depressing, at least to me, that the dominant argument on this issue on this list - expressed by respected community members - is that the IETF should not expend the cycles to do even this barest minimum.

John

On Jul 7, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

"John" == John Morris <jmorris-lists@xxxxxxx> writes:

   John> Paul, Sam, I understand your arguments to bascially be "we've
John> never had an internal privacy problem here at the IETF, and as John> far as I know no one decides not to participate because of the
   John> lack of a privacy policy, so we have no need to follow basic
   John> standards of privacy hygiene."

This is not an accurate characterization of my argument.

I substantially agree with Paul's message in response.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]