GDPR scares me. Not because it isn't a good idea. It's the implementation.
Problem #1: They're doing it in a 'waterfall' style, deciding how everything will be after the law drops, with no clear mechanism or timelines to fix broken things.
Problem #1: They're doing it in a 'waterfall' style, deciding how everything will be after the law drops, with no clear mechanism or timelines to fix broken things.
Problem #2: The above proposal, which describes sweeping, if minor, changes to how WHOIS information is shared, is published as a PDF, and takes 14 pages to describe three simple options. Inaccessibility through bureaucracy.
Problem #3: The people writing this are obviously not aware of the social dynamics of the thing they are deliberating on. The preferred option in this case hides any email address at all for WHOIS registrations.
This doesn't enhance privacy at all for registrants, because people can and do already use intermediaries or even just a single-use email to protect their identity. Instead, legal due process is the only way to get in touch with a registrant if this goes ahead (re: $$$).
This reduces accessibility, increases cost, and doesn't help privacy in practice. It also means that all registrars will be breaking the law without changes to deployed infrastructure, and many WHOIS client systems will break.
Problem #4: The fact is, GDPR is coming, soon, and very few people know about it, what its impact will be, or how to implement it. The EU isn't doing itself any favours by pretending that the lawyers in charge of GDPR are the same as the people who will implement it.
It's increasingly looking like GDPR is a massive scaled-up version of the idiotic and horrifically mis-managed "cookie law".
I want a regulated internet, but I want it done well, gradually (so we can avoid unintended negative consequences), and in a way that addresses network- and desire-driven systems of power and control.
I'm terrified that we're getting a new set of FCC / Ofcom / en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t… style regulators that are ultimately controlled by dominant industry and stifling to new development, and the life-blood of a legal class, not meaningful online freedoms for individuals.
