Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

You mean something like this? https://certikit.com/products/gdpr-toolkit/ While not CC licensed it might get you where you need to go. On Sat, May 26, 2018, 7:06 PM Dan Hollis wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2018, Royce Williams wrote: > > Naively ... to counter potential panic, it would be awesome

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> > This is really off-topic for NANOG. Is there a better place where this > discussion can be found? ISIPP hosts several email groups where this conversation would be appropriate. Anybody who would like to continue the conversation there is welcome to ping me offlist requesting to join

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 27, 2018, at 3:19 AM, Michel 'ic' Luczak wrote: > > Still on ec.europa.eu they seem to try to reassure > SMEs that the penalties will be “proportionate” both to the nature of the > infringement and to the size to the company. It also seem to largely be >

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

This is really off-topic for NANOG. Is there a better place where this discussion can be found?

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

In article <230722.1527374...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> you write: >Now here's the big question - a *lot* of companies are targeting "anybody with >a freemail account like GMail and a valid Visa or Mastercard card" or similar >business models - does that count as "specifically targeting at EU", or

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

* l...@satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) [Sun 27 May 2018, 23:17 CEST]: On 05/27/2018 12:54 PM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: You have this the wrong way around.  You'll need permission to store their IP address in logs that you keep and to inform third parties about their visits to your site. 

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 05/27/2018 12:54 PM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: > You have this the wrong way around.  You'll need permission to store > their IP address in logs that you keep and to inform third parties about > their visits to your site.  And that is because that information belongs > to the visitor, not

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Hi, >> The way GDPR is written, if you want to collect (and store) so much as >> the IP address of the potential customer who visited your website, you >> need their informed consent and you can’t require that they consent as >> a condition of providing service. > > What we were told is that

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On 27 May 2018, at 21:41, Owen DeLong wrote: > > The way GDPR is written, if you want to collect (and store) so much as > the IP address of the potential customer who visited your website, you > need their informed consent and you can’t require that they consent as > a

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

* o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) [Sun 27 May 2018, 21:42 CEST]: The way GDPR is written, if you want to collect (and store) so much as the IP address of the potential customer who visited your website, you need their informed consent and you can’t require that they consent as a condition of

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 26, 2018, at 18:42 , Royce Williams wrote: > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 4:57 PM Dan Hollis wrote: > >> I imagine small businesses who do a small percentage of revenue to EU >> citizens will simply decide to do zero percentage of

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Hi, >> Thanks for the clarification. But whether that fine will be less than 10M is >> extremely vague and (I guess?) left up to the opinions or whims of a Euro >> bureaucrat or judge panel, or something like that... based on very vague and >> subjective criteria. I've searched and nobody can

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On 26 May 2018, at 21:04, Rob McEwen wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification. But whether that fine will be less than 10M is > extremely vague and (I guess?) left up to the opinions or whims of a Euro > bureaucrat or judge panel, or something like that... based on very

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

r...@invaluement.com> Fecha: domingo, 27 de mayo de 2018, 0:16 Para: <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news On 5/26/2018 3:36 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > Talking from the experience because the previous laws in Spain, LOPD and LS

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Sat, 26 May 2018, Royce Williams wrote: Naively ... to counter potential panic, it would be awesome to crowdsource some kind of CC-licensed GDPR toolkit for small orgs. Something like a boilerplate privacy policy (perhaps generated by answers to questions), plus some simplified checklists,

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 4:57 PM Dan Hollis wrote: > I imagine small businesses who do a small percentage of revenue to EU > citizens will simply decide to do zero percentage of revenue to EU > citizens. The risk is simply too great. That would be a shame. I would expect

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Sat, 26 May 2018, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 5/24/18 4:21 PM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: Actually, GDPR specifically requires processors to include statements of compliance right in their contracts; we also strongly recommend that controllers insist on indemnification clauses in their

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Sat, 26 May 2018 10:31:29 +0200, "Michel 'ic' Luczak" said: > "When the regulation does not apply > Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services > to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they > travel > to other countries, including

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/26/2018 3:36 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: Talking from the experience because the previous laws in Spain, LOPD and LSSI Jordi, LOPD/LSSI does not = GDPR But even if there was a probability that GDPR would operate like they do: (1) it is alarming that the fines mentioned on

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

rds, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel...@nanog.org> en nombre de Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> Fecha: sábado, 26 de mayo de 2018, 21:06 Para: <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news On 5/26/2018 2:36

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

* Mark Andrews: > Domain whois is absolutely useful. Try contacting a site to report > that their nameservers are hosed without it. A lot of WHOIS servers do not show who's running the name servers, or who maintains the data served by them. Those that do usually provide information which is

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/26/2018 2:36 PM, Michel 'ic' Luczak wrote: Original text from EU Commission: "Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 10 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 2 % of the total worldwide annual

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On 26 May 2018, at 20:28, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > > > On 5/26/18 8:15 PM, Michel 'ic' Luczak wrote: >> The two levels depend on the nature of the infringement, but it says clearly >> “up to 10M” (or 2% of your worldwide revenue, whichever is bigger) for the >> “less

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/26/18 8:15 PM, Michel 'ic' Luczak wrote: The two levels depend on the nature of the infringement, but it says clearly “up to 10M” (or 2% of your worldwide revenue, whichever is bigger) for the “less serious” infringements. So no, there is no minimum fine actually. To me that says the

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On 26 May 2018, at 19:37, Rob McEwen wrote: > > The *MINIMUM* fine is 10M euros. > > SEE: https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/ > The two levels depend on the nature of the infringement, but it

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/26/2018 12:29 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: I don't recall right now the exact details about how they calculate the fine The *MINIMUM* fine is 10M euros. SEE: https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/ This is true no matter how small the business, and

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > -Mensaje original- > De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Seth Mattinen > <se...@rollernet.us> > Fecha: sábado, 26 de mayo de 2018, 16:00 > Para: <nanog@nanog.org> > Asunto: Re: Whois vs

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

.@rollernet.us> Fecha: sábado, 26 de mayo de 2018, 16:00 Para: <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news On 5/26/18 1:30 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: > I don't think, in general the DPAs need to use lawsuits. > > If they discover

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/26/18 1:30 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote: I don't think, in general the DPAs need to use lawsuits. If they discover (by their own, or by means of a customer claim) that a company (never mind is from the EU or outside) is not following the GDPR, they will just fine it and the

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

e original- De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> Fecha: sábado, 26 de mayo de 2018, 11:29 Para: Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> CC: <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news Seth Mattinen wrote on 26/05/2

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Seth Mattinen wrote on 26/05/2018 08:41: Good luck getting multiple millions worth of fines out of small businesses that never even touch a million a year in revenue, let alone the added expenses of trying to do all the crap GDPR thinks everyone can suddenly afford out of nowhere. You can

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On 23 May 2018, at 19:12, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 11:05 AM, K. Scott Helms wrote: >> >> Yep, if you're doing a decent job around securing data then you don't have >> much to be worried about on that side of

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/24/18 4:21 PM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: Actually, GDPR specifically requires processors to include statements of compliance right in their contracts; we also strongly recommend that controllers insist on indemnification clauses in their contracts with processors, because if the

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Anne, While I was re-reading some of the emails last night I realized that I mischaracterized your description here, *"You may accuse me of being a lawyer here (and rightly so :-) ), but "in", as in "in the Union" (which is the actual language) is very much open to interpretation. In a judicial

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 23, 2018, at 7:18 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: > > Anything that can tie back to an individual data subject is PII, that means > email addresses, names in combination with addresses or phone numbers, finger > prints, or even insufficiently abstracted internal ID

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

There’s speculation that enforcement could occur via the FTC Privacy Shield program. > On May 23, 2018, at 7:38 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> No, but in the absence of a law that specifically bars the courts from >> doing so the will under current reciprocal treaty arrangements.

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

In a nutshell this is a tariff war. They should have pursued their ideas about data privacy etc in international, multilateral venues. The EU is only about 10% of the world's population and perhaps 20% of the world's GDP. What does, for example, China or India think about all this? Is the EU

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On May 23, 2018 at 07:45 h...@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) wrote: > ...Now there is GDPR vs Theworld. Or vice-versa. Sincerely, TheWorld.com. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

How is it false? If you don’t do business in the EU or with EU persons, then you are not included in the class of organizations which GDPR says are subject to GDPR. Owen > On May 23, 2018, at 4:36 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: > > Owen, > > That's false, please don't

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

No, but in the absence of a law that specifically bars the courts from doing so the will under current reciprocal treaty arrangements. No, really, what treaties? I understand treaties about domesticating a tort judgement but this isn't a tort, this is a regulation. R's, John PS: can

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 23, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. > wrote: > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Daniel Brisson wrote: >> >>> Also, don't forget the private right of action. Anyone can file anything >>> in the U.S. courts... you may get it

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Wed, 23 May 2018, Owen DeLong wrote: On May 23, 2018, at 08:53, John Levine wrote: If they try to sue in, say, US courts, the US court will ask them to explain why a US court should try a suit under foreign law. There is a very short list of reasons to do that, and this

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 23, 2018, at 11:05 AM, K. Scott Helms wrote: > > Yep, if you're doing a decent job around securing data then you don't have > much to be worried about on that side of things. The problem for most > companies is that GDPR isn't really a security law, it's a

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Anne, Yep, if you're doing a decent job around securing data then you don't have much to be worried about on that side of things. The problem for most companies is that GDPR isn't really a security law, it's a privacy law (and set of regulations). That's where it's hard because there are a

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matt...@matthew.at> > > To: "Fletcher Kittredge" <fkitt...@gwi.net> > > Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> > > S

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 23, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Daniel Brisson wrote: > >> Also, don't forget the private right of action. Anyone can file anything in >> the U.S. courts... you may get it dismissed (although then again you may >> not) but either way, it's going to be time and money out

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 5/23/18, 12:10 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Anne P. Mitchell Esq." wrote: > On May 23, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 08:53, John Levine

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 05/23/2018 09:09 AM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote: Also, don't forget the private right of action. Anyone can file anything in the U.S. courts... you may get it dismissed (although then again you may not) but either way, it's going to be time and money out of your pocket fighting it. MUCH

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 23, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 08:53, John Levine wrote: >> >> In article >> you >> write: >>> I asked one of the EU regulators at RSA how

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

> On May 23, 2018, at 08:53, John Levine wrote: > > In article > you > write: >> I asked one of the EU regulators at RSA how they intended to enforce GDPR >> violations on businesses that don't operate in

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

ge - > > From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matt...@matthew.at> > To: "Fletcher Kittredge" <fkitt...@gwi.net> > Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 8:07:15 PM > Subject: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

In article you write: >I asked one of the EU regulators at RSA how they intended to enforce GDPR >violations on businesses that don't operate in their jurisdiction and >without hesitation he told me they'd use civil courts to

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Dan Hollis wrote: How about the ones with broken contact data - deliberately or not? A whois blacklist sounds good to me. DNS WBL? Many sites are already doing this locally. It's just a matter of time before Spamhaus or an up-and-coming entity has an RBL for it. The data is perhaps not

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

ligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "K. Scott Helms" <kscotthe...@gmail.com> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "NANOG list&quo

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

...@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:46:19 AM Subject: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news Sadly this isn't true. While I doubt the EU regulators are going to come head hunting for companie

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

www.midwest-ix.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matt...@matthew.at> > To: "Fletcher Kittredge" <fkitt...@gwi.net> > Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 8:07:15 PM > Subj

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

..@matthew.at> To: "Fletcher Kittredge" <fkitt...@gwi.net> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 8:07:15 PM Subject: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:56 PM Fletcher Kittredge <fkitt...@gwi.net> wrote: > What

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Tue, 22 May 2018, Jimmy Hess wrote: Perhaps it's time that some would consider new RBLs and Blackhole feeds based on : Domains with deliberately unavailable WHOIS data. How about the ones with broken contact data - deliberately or not? A whois blacklist sounds good to me. DNS WBL?

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 23/05/2018 04:50, John Levine wrote: >> What about the likely truth that if anyone from Europe mails the list, then >> every mail server operator with subscribers to the list must follow the >> GDPR Article 14 notification requirements, as the few exceptions appear to >> not apply (unless

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Domain whois is absolutely useful. Try contacting a site to report that their nameservers are hosed without it. People forget that the primary purpose of whois is to report faults. You don’t need to do it very often but when you do it is crucial. Remember that about 50% of zones have not RFC

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but was domain whois ever really that useful? I can't remember ever using it for any legitimate sort of activity, and I know it gets scraped quite a bit by spammers. Most of the data is bogus these days on a lot of TLDs which allow "anonymous registrations"

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

What is GDPR? My current guess is "Just another thing to learn since whois is now broken because to many of us just abused a once useful tool" On 23 May 2018 1:50:17 PM NZST, John Levine wrote: >>What about the likely truth that if anyone from Europe mails the list, >then

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Perhaps it's time that some would consider new RBLs and Blackhole feeds based on : Domains with deliberately unavailable WHOIS data. Including domains whose registrant has failed to cause their domain registrar and/or registry to list personally identifiable details for registrant and

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

>What about the likely truth that if anyone from Europe mails the list, then >every mail server operator with subscribers to the list must follow the >GDPR Article 14 notification requirements, as the few exceptions appear to >not apply (unless you’re just running an archive). Some of us whose

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:03 PM Jason Hellenthal wrote: > Mind pointing out where in the GDPR that it directly relates to these > types of mail services ? > > > Like most regulations, it doesn’t call out a specific thing like email or social networking sites or ecommerce.

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Mind pointing out where in the GDPR that it directly relates to these types of mail services ? > On May 21, 2018, at 20:07, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:56 PM Fletcher Kittredge wrote: > >> What about my right to not have this

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:56 PM Fletcher Kittredge wrote: > What about my right to not have this crap on NANOG? > What about the likely truth that if anyone from Europe mails the list, then every mail server operator with subscribers to the list must follow the GDPR Article

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:06:27 -0400, Fletcher Kittredge said: > What about my right to not have this crap on NANOG? procmail is your friend. pgpSkSM4c3_8E.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

If of use, last Monday I recorded and posted video of Jonathan Zuck's briefing to NARALO on ICANN's interim plan . > ​https://youtu.be/9WVI4aFg0Lc​ -- Joly MacFie President - Internet Society New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) http://isoc-ny.org 218 565 9365

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 17/05/2018 19:03, Zbyněk Pospíchal wrote: > Dne 17/05/2018 v 18:14 Sander Steffann napsal(a): >> Hi, >> >> But this regulation increases essential liberty for individuals, so I don't >> understand your argument... > No, it don't. It has two aspects: > > [...] Very well said. -- Mark Rousell

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

What about my right to not have this crap on NANOG? On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Zbyněk Pospíchal wrote: > Dne 17/05/2018 v 18:14 Sander Steffann napsal(a): > > Hi, > > > > But this regulation increases essential liberty for individuals, so I > don't understand your

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

@ampr.org> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:23:22 AM To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news An article in The Register on the current status of Whois and the GDPR. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/16/whois_privacy_shambles/

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

I don't. I have better things to do than babysit various accounts I've signed up over the years. Just because someone signs up for an account and forgets about it is not a good enough reason to have my information DESTROYED WITHOUT MY PERMISSION if I do happen to be busy that week to sign in

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On 17 May 2018 at 08:03, Niels Bakker

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On May 17, 2018 at 10:29 niels=na...@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote: > We cannot escape UDRP but at least we now have a say in what we are > forced to publish about ourselves. Just curious, what does UDRP have to do with any of this? UDRP is an ICANN process which allows someone who

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

Hi, > Dne 17/05/2018 v 15:03 Niels Bakker napsal(a): >> * na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) [Thu 17 May 2018, 14:44 CEST]: >>> Agreed. This is garbage, un-needed legislation. >> >> Disagreed. These are great and necessary regulations.> >> I'm loving the flood of convoluted unsubscribe notices

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

In a related note, I received a note from my registrar this morning telling me that, per current ICANN rules, I need to verify all the personal identifying information for the domains I control. 1. I checked WHOIS for all my domains, and they point to the proxy service that my registrar

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

* br...@ampr.org (Brian Kantor) [Thu 17 May 2018, 16:23 CEST]: An article in The Register on the current status of Whois and the GDPR. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/16/whois_privacy_shambles/ My registrar already does all the things listed in this article that registrars supposedly

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

An article in The Register on the current status of Whois and the GDPR. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/16/whois_privacy_shambles/

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

* na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) [Thu 17 May 2018, 14:44 CEST]: Agreed. This is garbage, un-needed legislation. Disagreed. These are great and necessary regulations. I'm loving the flood of convoluted unsubscribe notices this month from companies that had stored PII for no reason.

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

ne A. Murenin" <muren...@gmail.com>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:18:54 PM Subject: Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news At this point if I were a registrar or registry doing business in such a way as to be sub

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

* o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) [Thu 17 May 2018, 03:19 CEST]: At this point if I were a registrar or registry doing business in such a way as to be subject to gdpr, I’d seriously consider spinning up a subsidiary only for that purpose and leave it with minimal revenues and nothing to collect

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On May 16, 2018 at 18:18 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote: > At this point if I were a registrar or registry doing business in such a way > as to be subject to gdpr, I’d seriously consider spinning up a subsidiary > only for that purpose and leave it with minimal revenues and nothing to

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

At this point if I were a registrar or registry doing business in such a way as to be subject to gdpr, I’d seriously consider spinning up a subsidiary only for that purpose and leave it with minimal revenues and nothing to collect in the event of a lawsuit. Either that or simply stop doing

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

On May 16, 2018 at 16:10 muren...@gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin) wrote: > I think this is the worst of both worlds. The data is basically still > public, but you cannot access it unless someone marks you as a > "friend". > > This policy is basically what Facebook is. And how well it

Re: Whois vs GDPR, latest news

I think this is the worst of both worlds. The data is basically still public, but you cannot access it unless someone marks you as a "friend". This policy is basically what Facebook is. And how well it played out once folks realised that their shared data wasn't actually private? C. On 16 May