Question of privacy with reassigned resources

Wed Aug 4 20:08:50 UTC 2010

+1

During the P3P too-and-fro on what constituted PII I lost the argument 
that masking off the last bits constituted acceptable non-disclosure 
of PII.

Additionally, viewing the long/lat of a property where b/w and 
addresses are provisioned as the legal entity which owns the building 
seems odd.

Eric

On 8/4/10 3:46 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Steven Bellovin<smb at cs.columbia.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 4, 2010, at 1:35 17AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Franck Martin<franck at genius.com>  wrote:
>>>> If it is a business, then accurate address does not seem to me an
>>>> issue, if it is a private address, I think a bit of fuzziness is
>>>> helpful
>>>
>>> An apartment complex/condo/etc is a business which contains private
>>> addresses.
>>>
>>> Do you sell to the residents directly or do you sell to the apartment
>>> complex which then resells to individual residents?
>>>
>>> If the former then you're basically off the hook for anybody who
>>> doesn't get a /29 or larger.
>>>
>>> For the latter, you're providing significant amounts of a public
>>> resource (IP addresses) to a business whose contact information you're
>>> contractually and ethically obligated to reveal. If a particular
>>> complex is worried about publishing their location, they can always
>>> rent a P.O. box. If you're the only one doing the worrying, don't.
>>
>> I strongly disagree -- you're revealing the precise address of any tenant
>> in those buildings.  Don't do that...
>>
>>
>
> Chiming in: I would tend to agree with smb on this particular issue --
> that's a bit *too* precise.
>
> - - ferg
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)
>
> wj8DBQFMWcNoq1pz9mNUZTMRArbvAJ9ymAZzgf/hlOVPWQtTj3GcGCFKaACff7Hy
> bMw7Gg6uZObU4cPmoDU9TK4=
> =mrQI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>