[128378] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Aug 5 08:50:47 2010
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:04:47 EDT."
<AANLkTini7fsA6zeOtxr9rb0-ZFVv-3-vHhTgc3oZOnYc@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:49:56 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1281012596_3971P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:04:47 EDT, William Herrin said:
> If you feel that way, I suggest you take the issue up on the ARIN
> public policy mailing list. Solicit public consensus for a change in
> handling for SWIPs for "apartment complexes as ISP resellers." Absent
> such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
> management company remains simple fraud.
I'm not at all convinced that mere redaction qualifies as fraud. It certainly
qualifies as *deceptive* - but does it rise to "fraudulent"? Is the fact that
I use a Mail Boxes Etc-type service and don't accept mail at my home address
because it's a very physically insecure mailbox fraudulent? Yes, it's somewhat
deceptive, because it's not my actual home address. But unless you stretch
"deception for personal gain" to the point where "gain" is "I don't want mail
stolen from my mailbox", I don't think it's actual fraud.
--==_Exmh_1281012596_3971P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMWrN0cC3lWbTT17ARAsxfAJwLUy5zRl8HLhs6vLEr9WPkZdIifQCfeLG6
wsxrgBlvWM9nnEwtGMlFhWw=
=aw7l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1281012596_3971P--
