Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 10:22:07 -0000

Hi,

Is it too late to ask for some privacy considerations to be added to this document?

My initial thought was that the authors would point me to 8805, but a quick look there doesn’t show any mention of privacy.

My concern here is that the end-user’s geographic locale is being exposed to the service provider without the agreement of the end-user, and without the end-user even knowing that it is happening.

I know that this information has great value for a number of aspects of service provision (not least geographic licensing), and I am not opposed to its availability. I do object, however, to the concept that a user’s locale is generally available. A user should have the option of not revealing their locale (in the knowledge that this may exclude them from accessing some services).

Now, I doubt that this document is the right place to fix these privacy concerns. But it might be a good place to add a short paragraph on the privacy issues raised by using geo feeds.

Best,

Adrian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 11:27:50 -0800

hey adrian,

> Is it too late to ask for some privacy considerations to be added to

it is never too late to ask for privacy.  as usual, the problem is how
to provide it :)

> My initial thought was that the authors would point me to 8805, but a
> quick look there doesn’t show any mention of privacy.

which is unfortunate.  the authors have sworn under oath that they
considered it.

e.g. they told me that this is why postal codes are not in 8805 geofeed
files.  they described places such as those isles to the west of europe
(on which i think you live) postal codes can locate an individual or
extremely small group.

> My concern here is that the end-user’s geographic locale is being
> exposed to the service provider without the agreement of the end-user,
> and without the end-user even knowing that it is happening.

i think we all share the concern that an end-user's locale might be
revealed.  and i suspect at least you and i pretty much agree on the
core issues.  but ...

tl;dr: that is an 8805 problem, water under someone else's bridge

unnecessary and pedantic details:

  o in pretty much all cases i know, the user's locale is known by their
    service provider.  the issue would seem to be the provider's
    revealing the user's locale to the public, which includes other
    providers.

  o my understanding is that 8805 was developed specifically to provide
    a mechanism for the user's provider to publish the user's locale to
    other providers, with the major goal being content customization.

  o whether we believe that content should be customized by locale,
    while an interesting discussion, is probably best held in another
    locale.

  o luckily, the folk who want to customize content by locale seem happy
    with fairly low resolution.

  o though clearly agencies such as law enforcement and my mother, would
    love one's precise locale at all times; i do not think they were the
    intended customer for 8805, and they are definitely not the intended
    customer for this draft.

> I know that this information has great value for a number of aspects
> of service provision (not least geographic licensing), and I am not
> opposed to its availability. I do object, however, to the concept that
> a user’s locale is generally available. A user should have the option
> of not revealing their locale (in the knowledge that this may exclude
> them from accessing some services).

let's remember that even 8805 does not directly reveal the location of
users.  it reveals low resolution location of ip address spaces.  but of
course we know ip addresses can be attributed to users.

> Now, I doubt that this document is the right place to fix these
> privacy concerns. But it might be a good place to add a short
> paragraph on the privacy issues raised by using geo feeds.

to paraphrase the immortal words of vince perriello, send text :)
but, as a first idea, how about something such as this in the Geofeed
Files section?

    RFC8805 geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP
    address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an
    individual user.  Unfortunately, RFC8805 provides no privacy
    guidance on avoiding or ameliorating possible damage due to this
    exposure of the user.  In publishing pointers to geofeed files as
    described in this document the operator should be aware of this
    exposure in geofeed data and be cautious.

sad to say, i can not think of more useful guidance than caution.

randy

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 20:28:08 -0000

Hi Randy,

Thanks for engaging, and I know I presented an "interesting" challenge.

8805 was, of course, an Independent Stream production. So I carry as much
responsibility as anyone else for the lack of privacy discussion. But, more
significantly, I am entirely responsible for not having noted section 4 of
RFC 8805 when I wrote my email - oops.

So perhaps modifying your paragraph to...

    RFC8805 geofeed data may reveal the approximate location of an IP
    address, which might in turn reveal the approximate location of an
    individual user.  As noted in section 4 of RFC8805, publishers of
    geolocation feeds are advised to have fully considered any and all
    privacy implications of the disclosure.  Further, operators who publish
    geolocation information are strongly encouraged to inform affected
    users/customers of this fact and of the potential privacy-related
    consequences and trade-offs.  In publishing pointers to geofeed files
    as described in this document the operator should be aware of these
    privacy concerns and be cautious.

That would just leave me asking whether everyone was happy with the
normative reference to a non-IETF RFC. It seems a little odd that the IETF
didn't want to publish 8805, but is chipper about publishing this document.
But, I'm not bothered by this.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 01 February 2021 19:28
To: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

hey adrian,

> quick look there doesn?t show any mention of privacy.

> My concern here is that the end-user?s geographic locale is being

> a user?s locale is generally available. A user should have the option

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:47:24 -0800

>     privacy concerns and be cautious.

done.  thanks.

best to ignore the games of flavors of rfcs.

randy

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:00:40 -0800

> RFC 8805 when I wrote my email - oops.

Yeah, I was pretty sure we had written something.  =)

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8805.html#name-privacy-considerations

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:36:32 -0800

> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8805.html#name-privacy-considerations

and i am guilty of not rereading 8805

may i suggest that finding-geofeeds merely say

   All the privacy considerations of RFC8804 Section 4 apply to this
   document.

saves a lot of words thereby reducing the rfc editor fee.

randy

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:51:44 -0000

Well, "whatever", but I liked the paragraph we had arrived at.

A

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 02 February 2021 00:37
To: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Ops Area WG <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 20:32:28 -0800

> Well, "whatever", but I liked the paragraph we had arrived at.

ok, ok.  i could not stand the whining and put it back :)

it's just that i really prefer words to communicate something.

randy