[gnso-restruc-dt] Q14 on privacy laws

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

Tim wrote:
I don't agree with retaining the privacy law verbiage. If it
stays, there should at least be more detail around what it 
pertains to so there isn't any misunderstanding about how it 
applies later. I can't see any reason for it myself.
-----------------------------------
Well the 27 EU member state privacy commissioners  may be interested to know 
their role as
guardians of privacy can be dismissed as so much "verbiage"!

Tim, the issue is that transparency of data such as member name, e-mail 
address, contact
phone, etc may be constrained by privacy laws. 
In the EU (for example) the basic presumption is that data can be processed (eg 
shown on a
web site) only when that complies with the reason for which the data was first 
collected.So
there may be legal constraints to certain views of "transparency". This is a 
vital safeguard
and a useful watch-out that constituencies do not inadvertently break the law.

It is worth noting the EU view of US privacy law is that the US standard is 
inadequate.