Dear SwiNOGers,
We are pleased to announce the first of its kind, "Special SwiNOG Event".
Special SwiNOG Events are here to gather ISPs together with topics that would
not fit into a "Classic" SwiNOG event. Either because the topic itself is a bit
off the usual SwiNOG topics or because the SwiN
>> If IPs are protected information, so how is this handled in E-Mails,
>> on mailing-lists like this and alike?
>
> very simple: all mailing lists are now illegal. As well as all IP routers.
Not at all. (Otherwise all telephony operators would also be illegal). As for
the mail headers, its an
- Original Message
> From: rudol...@212.55.212.115
> To: swinog@lists.swinog.ch
> If IPs are protected information, so how is this handled in E-Mails,
> on mailing-lists like this and alike?
very simple: all mailing lists are now illegal. As well as all IP routers.
__
If IPs are protected information, so how is this handled in E-Mails,
on mailing-lists like this and alike?
Have messages to be stripped off IPs before they are delivered?
Who's legally responsible for protecting the data?
Just an example: Company X could scan all header information from
SwiNOG-li
> Well, the court doesn't state anything in detail in a press release. It's
in
> the court decision document. But we're off-topic I think. Lets just
aggregate
> all open questions and I'll get answers from a qualified person, a lawyer,
> not techies like us ;-)
What I ment is, why not wait until t
Well actually it does - the processing of protected data requires a
legal foundation or agreement of the person identified by that data.
See DSG Art. 4 Abs. 1 and 4
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/235_1/a4.html
Since IP addresses are now "schützenswerte Daten", processing these is
subject to the laws o
> I think it's far too early to jump into conclusions right now. The court
> didn't even state it's reasons in detail. As far as I understand it right
> now, this does only mean one has to take care about data that contains ip
> addresses - but not, that such data processing would be a legal proble
I think it's far too early to jump into conclusions right now. The court
didn't even state it's reasons in detail. As far as I understand it right
now, this does only mean one has to take care about data that contains ip
addresses - but not, that such data processing would be a legal problem at
all
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 16:15 +0200, Pascal Gloor wrote:
> > i think there will be some Common sense in this point, as it is
> > quite
> > different to collect and sell this kind of datas, and to use them as
> > stats tools (have a look at the numerous fidelity cards we can find
> > anywhere).
> >
I'm trying to make a list of all possible implications/problems that this
ruling can make. Please send me a direct mail with your questions and I will
forward them to a good lawyer (actually, the one involved in that case).
So far, questions/implications I've seen or came to me are:
---
Any st
> i think there will be some Common sense in this point, as it is quite
> different to collect and sell this kind of datas, and to use them as
> stats tools (have a look at the numerous fidelity cards we can find
> anywhere).
>
> also maybe a publicly available stat... i dont know, but sounds
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 14:24 +0200, Beat Rubischon wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Thanks for the pointer!
>
> Quoting (08.09.10 14:14):
>
> > How does this affect Blacklist- and Whitelist vendors or organisations like
> > dnswl.org or our swinog blacklists ?
>
> >From my point of view they are "anonymized
Hello!
Thanks for the pointer!
Quoting (08.09.10 14:14):
> How does this affect Blacklist- and Whitelist vendors or organisations like
> dnswl.org or our swinog blacklists ?
>From my point of view they are "anonymized". No chance to get a relation
between the entry in the RBL and a person (nat
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:57 +0200, Viktor Steinmann wrote:
> I haven't decided yet, if that's a good thing or not. But could you
> point us to an online source for this news? Google isn't very helpful at
> the moment.
In french:
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/16707-la-traque-aux-pirates-sur-l
Hi,
How does this affect Blacklist- and Whitelist vendors or organisations like
dnswl.org or our swinog blacklists ?
--
Martin
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
http://www.bger.ch/index/press/press-inherit-template/press-mitteilungen.htm?id=tf1
cu
Radek Mrskos Email: mrs...@volume.ch
Baechlerstr. 12Tel: +41 43 534 40 24
CH-8802 Kilchberg Mob: +41 79 219 68 66
PGP:0x8CB69F6D Fax: +41 86079 2196 866
Am 08.09.2010 um 13:57 schrieb Viktor Ste
The BGE number of that court decision would be helpful...
Thanks,
Juerg
> -Original Message-
> From: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch]
> On Behalf Of Viktor Steinmann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:57 PM
> To: swinog@lists.swinog.ch
> Subject:
I haven't decided yet, if that's a good thing or not. But could you
point us to an online source for this news? Google isn't very helpful at
the moment.
Thanks,
Viktor
On 08.09.2010 12:25, Pascal Gloor wrote:
Dear community,
something important for us happened today that may have some impact
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
wouldn't that render the usage of google analytics illegal?
Silvan
Am 08.09.2010 um 12:25 schrieb Pascal Gloor:
> Dear community,
>
> something important for us happened today that may have some impact on our
> daily business.
>
> Our Federal Co
Dear community,
something important for us happened today that may have some impact on our
daily business.
Our Federal Court just decided that IP addresses are personal data and the
federal law about data protection must also be followed also for IP addresses.
Collecting IP adresses for privat
20 matches
Mail list logo
