[db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Apr 14 13:56:34 CEST 2016
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:31:20PM +0200, denis wrote: Dear Denis > On 14/04/2016 08:41, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:07:01AM +0200, denis wrote: >> >> Denis >> >>> You really are barking up the wrong tree here. >> >> Nice try, but you misinterpret my intentions. > > This is a very condescending remark. I could personally perceive the same way your comment about barking up the wrong tree. Maybe one of us is oversensitive. Or this is plain language barrier. >> The hijacking issue was there for years. I'm just surprised that it was >> not raised by you during the discussion of issue 221. > > Again this is another condescending remark. You imply that I should know > everything at all times. If you knew about this hijacking issue that you Not at all. I just declare that I'm surprised. > say has been around for years, then as a co-chair of this working group why > did you not mention it at the time? Oh. I did. >>> You seem to be determined to 'prove' I am wrong suggesting rolling back the >>> name change would fix this issue. But you don't seem to accept that the >>> action you have taken has also NOT fixed the problem but caused many more >>> serious problems. >> >> Please refrain from suggesting that I have done something. > > The whole tone of this thread is one of attack and aggression towards me. > You are not discussing the issues but you are discussing me. You are > relentlessly pursuing my comments and looking back in history to prove me > wrong, instead of trying to move forward. You are doing exactly what you > accuse me of. I do not accuse you of anything. >> Moreover, keep saying the mantra about causing many more serious >> problems is neither the proof of this thesis nor the solution to >> anything. If you know/see something which could seriously improve the >> quality of the data, security model, business rules, etc, just bring it >> on the table. > > Sorry but you are missing the point here. It is not a thesis and I have > stated the serious problem. I was part of the Data Protection Task Force > many years ago. I spent a lot of time with the RIPE NCC's lawyers > discussing the data protection issues around the RIPE Database. > > The action you have taken HAS already created a data protection issue. Once again - please refrain from writing that I have done something here. At least that is how I understand constant usage of the word "you". > There are now about a million personal data sets in the database that the > data subjects cannot change. The RIPE NCC has stated it will not unlock any > of these objects as they cannot be sure who they refer to. The RIPE NCC, as > Data Controller of this database has a million personal data sets in their > database that they cannot assert contain accurate data and they have > prevented the data subjects from updating their personal data. The RIPE NCC > also, even as Data Controller, cannot do anything to fix or replace these > personal data sets. If this is data protection issue, I suggest to notice the Dutch Data Protection Authority. > Now I will bring some suggestions to the table to fix this issue. First I > would like the RIPE NCC legal team to review this situation and publish to > this list their considerations. Secondly I suggest the RIPE NCC unlocks > these objects, as it makes no difference to the hijacking situation that > you say has been around for years anyway. Third I suggest the RIPE NCC > aggressively pursues the members who reference these unmaintained personal > objects and pushes them to either maintain them or replace them. Now, this is something. > Finally I would say that for an issue that the DB WG co-chairs have known > to have been around for many years, I don't see why it needed a secret, > back room discussion and a sudden announcement that the RIPE NCC has locked > a million objects without any community discussion. > > As I am not receiving the emails in this discussion from the DB WG mailing > list, I think you may have already blocked them. So I have cc'd Athina > directly for a legal comment. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]