[ppml] Privacy Legislation and new proposals affecting residential privacy
anne at apnic.net
Tue Aug 24 19:39:21 EDT 2004
It may be of interest to others to know that at the last APNIC meeting a
proposal 'Privacy of customer assignment records' was approved. The full
details of the proposal, all discussions, minutes and presentations can be
found at this URL.
The policy will not be implemented until the end of September. For anyone
interested, there will be a project implementation update at the next APNIC
meeting (next week) which will be available by webcast and live
for more details.
At 01:08 AM 25/08/2004 +0200, Gregory Massel wrote:
>In discussions of the privacy of residential customer information, please
>consider that the reach of this extends beyond ARIN itself.
>Various countries have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, privacy
>Eg. In South Africa (which presently falls within the ARIN service region),
>the chapter 2 of the constitution entrenches every person's rights to
>privacy. To further entrench individual's privacy rights beyond this general
>provision the Law Commission has been drafting privacy legislation that will
>protect personal information. It is quite likely that in the future it will
>be illegal for South African ISPs to publish residential customers' names
>and address information in the whois database.
>Although not strictly an issue for ARIN, it may be worth taking into
>consideration legislative requirements outside of the ARIN region as these
>demonstrate the result of extensive international consultation regarding
>policies of this nature.
>In particular, I draw your attention to the case of the EU region:
>In particular, "Article 12 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications
>Directive therefore grants subscribers of all forms of electronic
>communication services (fixed or mobile telephony, e-mail) the right to
>decide for themselves whether they want to be in a public directory."
>The threats posed to individuals whose privacy is not entrenched are
>I have heard arguments that this could be used as a means of safeguarding
>spammers and fraudsters, however, I urge you to consider the most basic
>legal principle of "Innocent until proven guilty." It seems extremely
>drastic to have to compromise the privacy of the innocent in order to make
>the process of tracing the guilty simpler. It also seems drastic that even
>the name and residential address of a spammer/fraudster be made public
>before that person has been prosecuted lawfully and afforded the dignity of
>defending the charges against him/her and a fair trial in which he/she is
>judged and found guilty.
>One might also want to consider the risks of backlash from organisations
>such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation that campaign for online privacy
>should policies be amended to require the publishing of residential customer
More information about the ARIN-PPML