Question of privacy with reassigned resources

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Thu Aug 5 07:49:56 CDT 2010


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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100805/0ad46299/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list