Subject: Next steps on Web Analytics Project

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:59:15 +0000

Hello!

This note provides an update on the web analytics for www.ietf.org project.  In response to the initial proposal [1], the community provided a variety of helpful feedback [2].  The IESG and IETF Tools Team reviewed this community feedback and revised the proposal.  The more significant revisions included an explanation of the current analytics systems and associated practices; clarifying the scope and enumerating the explicit use cases; identifying the link between the collected data and the uses cases; and more clearly stating the privacy and security issues and their associated mitigations.

The final version of this project proposal can be found at [3].  This version has been endorsed by the IESG and (per Section 5 of this plan) the Tools Team will begin developing an implementation plan.

Again, thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
Roman
(as the IESG Tools Liaison)  

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5NLuTQfU60dXOzr4iH5hs4feIIw
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4F64H3feYZxNAi3VCiOyanUOID0
[3] https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/www.ietf.org-AnalyticsProposal-Revised-2019-09-24.pdf

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:39:14 -0700

Hi Roman,
At 04:59 AM 26-09-2019, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>This note provides an update on the web analytics for www.ietf.org 
>project.  In response to the initial proposal [1], the community 
>provided a variety of helpful feedback [2].  The IESG and IETF Tools 
>Team reviewed this community feedback and revised the proposal.  The 
>more significant revisions included an explanation of the current 
>analytics systems and associated practices; clarifying the scope and 
>enumerating the explicit use cases; identifying the link between the 
>collected data and the uses cases; and more clearly stating the 
>privacy and security issues and their associated mitigations.

Thank you for the sharing the next steps.  I could not find any 
mitigation for the issue mentioned on Page 5 (geolocation of IP 
addresses).  I unfortunately has to raise a concern about this 
IESG-endorsed tracking plan as I am not comfortable about having 
someone else within the IETF tracking what I read on the IETF web site.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 23:11:37 +0100

Hiya,

On 27/09/2019 22:39, S Moonesamy wrote:
> IESG-endorsed tracking plan as I am not comfortable about having someone
> else within the IETF tracking what I read on the IETF web site.

Yes, tracking what and when becomes possible.

I'm also unhappy with that. Is there no way to ensure
that addresses and geolocated regions are sufficiently
aggregated so as to not identify individuals?

/16's and countries are not sufficient for all IETFers.

I'm sure someone who reads this list would have a fair
chance at (re-)identifying various individuals based
on time, /16 or /48, and URL.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I partly ask in the hope we can provide a good example
of how a little more effort can help a lot.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:28:57 -0700

Hi Stephen,
>on time, /16 or /48, and URL.

It is technically possible to identify a person or a small set of 
persons even if the IPv4 addresses are aggregated by /14.  I suggest 
stepping back a little.  The technical solution is being used to 
drive the policy statement.  Would it be better to do the reverse to 
figure out what is feasible [1]?  That would entail flushing out the 
policy statement to get a sense of what information IESG members 
[2][3] would find useful.  The data processor could then use a 
"custom dimension" to decrease the probability of identification of 
that small set of persons.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Please see the P.S. in your email
2. One of the issues is that web analytics usually use the IP 
addresses to aggregate by country.  Does an IESG member need to know 
whether Country X has expressed an interest in, for example, the IESG 
history of appeals?
3. Does an IETF LLC Director need to know who is reading the monthly 
financial statements?