RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q14 on privacy laws

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for explaining. Would it work then to qualify the language to
something like "applicapable privacy law as it pertains to personally
identifiable information," or something like that?

Note, I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than necessary. So
I make the above suggestion but if everyone else if fine with the way it
is, I accept that.

Tim  

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q14 on privacy laws
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, May 15, 2009 2:42 am
To: <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


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.