Hi all > On Jan 25, 2019, at 18:21, Niels ten Oever <li...@digitaldissidents.org> > wrote: > > I fully agree that the IETF does not need to restrict its protocols to the > legislations of one geographical area. But I think the IETF should help > implementers to not violate the human rights of end-users, and consider > regulation when implementing. The IETF can seek to do so by thoroughly > analyzing the potential impacts of the protocols that are produced in and > published by the IETF and report on the in privacy, security and human rights > considerations.
I am new to this list so I am sorry if I say something wrong but... Any law of any state has priority over tech standard on the territory of this state. So including GDPR into tech standard has no any sense. Moreover it is wrongly because if legislator changes GDPR then the tech standard must be changed because it contradicts the law. So till now I have not seen any reason to insert GDPR into tech standard. I should say that if GDPR was included into the tech standard, our registry would not implement this extension. I think our registry is not the only one because it is impossible to mix tech standards with legislation. > Best, > > Niels > > PS The legislation not only applicable in the European Union, but anywhere in > the world where the data of EU citizens or residents is held. There are lot of cases where citizen of EU is not any side of agreement. > > >> Best regards, >> >> Thomas >> > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext -- Best regards Taras Heichenko ta...@hostmaster.ua _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
