Question of privacy with reassigned resources

Thu Aug 5 12:58:48 UTC 2010

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> 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.

Valdis,

It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate
but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.)
constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004