Hi Ronald On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 09:46, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, > Angela Dall'Ara <[email protected]> wrote: > > >RIPE policy proposal 2022-01, "Personal Data in the RIPE Database" is > >now available for discussion again. > > > >The goal of this proposal is to allow the publication of verified > >Personal Data in the RIPE Database only when they are justified by its > >purpose. > > > I object to the policy proposal for reasons that I have laid out at some > length on the Anti-Abuse Working Group's mailing list.
If you want to 'justify' publishing the home addresses of natural persons in this open, public database then propose a change to the purposes of the database to argue a case for doing so. > > Not that it matters. I'm sure that neither my vote nor those of the other > folks who have also expressed reservations about this proposal won't count, > and that the backers of this misguided proposal will declare consensus > come hell or high water anyway. > > Nobody is asking for this, and nobody is demaning that RIPE hide valuable > WHOIS data that has always been visible since the beginning of time, > except for a couple of people who are harboring misplaced fetishes for > privacy over transparency. Their time would be better invested in > solving actual problems, rather than imagined ones. Let me quote some of the points from your rants on the Anti Abuse mailing list: "This prompts a rather obvious question: Do there exist any policies, rules, or regulations which would prevent a natural person from using any one of the several techniques I have listed above to obfsucate their actual physical location when they generate their RIPE organization WHOIS record? And more to the point, is it true or false that, as I have previously asserted, any member can put literally any inaccurate garbage they want into their public-facing RIPE WHOIS records with no consequence whatsoever?" So you are supporting various means "to obfuscate their actual physical location" and then in the very next sentence complaining about "inaccurate garbage" in the database. Your own arguments are contradictory. "Shoulda natural-person who actually WANTS to be directly contacted for any and all issues relating to their RIPE number resources have that opportunity closed out" There are contacts referenced in the database that allow contact "for any and all issues relating to their RIPE number resources". I doubt any member would like Ronald to visit them at their home to rant on their doorstep. > > As I have said on the Anti-Abuse Working Group's mailing list, any > member concerned about concealing their mailing address either (a) is > up to no good or else (b) may easily and cheaply achieve the desired > goal FOR THEMSELVES by renting a cheap P.O. box. or (c) enter false data into an unverified, unchecked, mandatory field they don't want to fill in. (Any member who is > unable to locate a supplier of cheap rental P.O. boxes local to them > is probably too incompetent to qualify as a RIPE member anyway.) By making this unverified, unchecked field optional the less incompetent members can choose to enter a correct address or no address instead of false data, as recommended by the RIPE Database Task Force. cheers denis proposal author > > > Regards, > rfg > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
