Question of privacy with reassigned resources
brunner at nic-naa.net
Wed Aug 4 20:08:50 UTC 2010
During the P3P too-and-fro on what constituted PII I lost the argument
that masking off the last bits constituted acceptable non-disclosure
Additionally, viewing the long/lat of a property where b/w and
addresses are provisioned as the legal entity which owns the building
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>
>> 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
>>> An apartment complex/condo/etc is a business which contains private
>>> 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)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the NANOG