[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Re: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] icann.edleman.19990819 / Access to ICANN Santiago real video feed (fwd)
Jeff Mason wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
> > I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally
> reasonable -- each
> > justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy
> policies clearly
> > stated on the sign-in form itself. Nonetheless, if there are
> > counterarguments re why the above should be done
> differently (or not at all,
> > I suppose...), I'd be open to hearing them, on or off-list.
> Well you see that's the point. Logistal reason. And you
> post first name
> and last name information of the participants.
> Privacy law certains around an individuals "right to
> privacy". If ICANN
> were a commercial organizations, and even a standard non profit
> organization, such rights would not apply. But ICANN
> represents a very
> large constituency, and if must respect establish privacy law and
> The fact you disclose and have a privacy statement is
> irrelevant. As a
> democratic NGO, ICANN must understand individual have the
> right to decline
> providing any information. And just entering junk into the
> fields is not
> enough, they must have the right to decline any contribution
> of personal
> information, a right to decline. ICANN has no established privacy
> guidelines of any value - understandably - the organization
> is young. But
> the issues bear some urgency in consideration.
> Jeff Mason
I am surprised on how this can become an issue.
Who wants to maintain privacy can give a fake name and company, like, for
instance, "Jeff Williams - INEG".
I don't think that the Berkman Center will ask for IDs or electronic
signature ;>). In fact, I assume that they can leave the fields blank, if
OTOH, people that want to identify themselves are welcome to do it.
Even comments to the USG Green + White Papers were "signed", identifying the
user. And I may assume that USG can be considered a NGO ;>).