To:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
cc:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:10:23 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:08:25 EDT." <a05111b00bac509286fe5@[192.149.252.108]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person
> As far as your input, it seems that in one message you did not want > to make a distinction between personal and corporate. If it isn't too difficult, in which message? Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:00:59 -0400 Putting org in is a mistake. People have "privacy", non-people don't. Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:52:11 -0400 I don't mind a mechanism existing for "secrecy", but I do mind calling it "privacy". ... So, if a mechanism to partition the read-access on a repository is desired, and general, that part that meets the policy meta-requirement for "privacy" (and data protection) can be packaged as "privacy" (and dcp). That part that meets other policy reqiurements can be packaged as "other". Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:36:47 -0400 non-disclosure by a legal entity (not an individual person). Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:25:38 -0400 Sounds extentional. I can see some operators putting "business privacy" on the same level as "human privacy", and some not. Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:39:36 -0400 Data that may identify individual persons is identified and policied. See <mumble>. Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:15:03 -0400 I think such an assertion is fundamentally unlearned. Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:24:29 -0400 It is possible to have both a sensible individual "privacy", and a sensible non-individual "secrecy", but not by asserting that the two are utterly indistinguishable. God am I tired of this. Eric