[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: GDPR-whois vs. seguridad Desde:<alberto@soto.net.ar> Absolutely agree Alejandro. They are solid arguments that any of us can corroborate locally, regionally or internationally. Recently in a LACIGF exposed an Argentine Criminal Judge with an excellent preparation on this subject. Even among other technical details, he spoke in his presentation about "IP address nateo" and explained it to the lawyers or people present who did not understand the topic.I spoke with him specifically about Whois, and he told me that before May 2018 (GDPR came into effect), there were places in the world that no longer provided information for police investigations, as they did up to that point. The topic Investigations of Terrorist Activities or Campaigns of Political Influence, is only one of those involved that are left with little or no possibility of investigation. Remember pedophilia, child pornography, human trafficking and several more. Personally, I think that between the security-privacy balance, Europe prioritized privacy excessively, particularly with the amounts of fines to be imposed.That is, on the one hand we have those fines, and on the other, terrorist criminals, arms dealers, human traffickers, etc. etc., who have financial resources infinitely superior to those fines. ICANN must answer ... Best regards Alberto Soto From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com> Sent on: Friday, June 7, 2019 04:46 amTo: Sergio Salinas Porto <presidencia@internauta.org.ar> CC: ALBERTO SOTO <alberto@soto.net.ar> ; At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> ; LACRALO Spanish <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: GDPR-whois vs. security Colleagues, https://apwg.org/830-2/ [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/6ba962feaf.html --]]