[governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 
08:55:09 on Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>The ambiguity starts when you need to tie an IP to an actual customers 
>name which you can only do after a subpoena from law enforcement

That isn't ambiguity, it's a matter of lawful process. Here in the UK 
the police can make such enquiries from an ISP without a subpoena from a 
court. However, they first have to be investigating a crime, which is 
why it was important to clarify what forms of [cyber]stalking are in 
fact a crime.

>On 16 February 2013 9:55:58 PM Roland Perry 
><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message
>> <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at
>> 20:08:31 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> writes
>> >Both resolve only to an IP address, which despite working party 19
>> >claims should not be considered personal data
>>
>> It's not about 100% unambiguous personal data, it's finding the
>> perpetrator.
>>
>> Most are what we call "loners", so an IP address is often sufficient,
>> although in practice knowing the real name behind a social media account
>> is usually good enough (when people set up the account, or their WHOIS,
>> they generally didn't realise they should lie about their name, address,
>> phone number etc just in case they became a fugitive later).
>>
>> And the ones who aren't "loners" may also narrow the suspects down to
>> (eg) a household with a man and wife and their 5 year old child. At that
>> point it's usually obvious which of them is the perpetrator.
>>
>> ps IP Addresses are often enough personal data that all processing of
>> them should be *treated as if* they are personal data. In other words,
>> protected by law (with relevant exceptions for prosecuting offenders)
>> even when it turns out they are ambiguous.
>>
>> >On 16 February 2013 7:47:15 PM Roland Perry
>> ><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ at mail.gmail.com>, at
>> >> 14:45:50 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> >> >> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
>> >> >> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil
>> society) have
>> >> >> not yet been resolved.
>> >> >
>> >> >IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
>> >> >legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
>> >> >corresponding polititical processes.
>> >>
>> >> But some of the remedies can only be applied at a global level (eg
>> >> traceability via WHOIS records, or from international "cloud" service
>> >> providers).
>> >> --
>> >> Roland Perry
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >____________________________________________________________
>> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> >For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>
>

-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t