To:
Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
cc:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:37:09 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:29:12 PDT." <F0816089-7030-11D7-A356-000393CB0816@qualcomm.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person
> One of the cases mentioned has been data for organizations > which implicitly identifies data about individual persons. One of the solved by roles. janitor@ibm.com > common cases would be the single-individual consulting shop; > in that case you might argue that revealing this information is > a cost of doing business as a legal entity rather than as an > individual. The solved by roles. janitor@gal-in-garage.com > hot-button cases, though, are those where revealing the information > has consequences for a third party. The shelter example is the > one most commonly cited, where the decision to reveal information > about the shelter's business address or telephone number affects > those who seek its services. solved by pobox and hotline. see http://www.cumberlandcounty.org/DAvr.html. > Figuring out whether or not to support specific cases seems to me > a policy decision. Having the hook for the different policies > seems reasonable enough; whether you cast it as "Privacy Considerations" > or "Client Data Control Considerations" doesn't really matter to me. I'm aware of that. Eric