[ppml] Nasty business with 2003-3
owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 12 21:36:01 EST 2004
His point, and I have to agree _IF_ you think privacy is a concern here
(I don't happen to agree) is that:
San Jose, CA 95121-1520
Toronto, ON V5K3W1
_IS_ a privacy concern. Both of those locations actually narrow things down
to a small enough search area that you have a decent chance of finding
through relatively simple methods. (Check the links Michael posted for one
set of possible examples.). I'll refrain from posting a tutorial on any
of the simpler techniques I know here.
--On Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:49 -0800 andrew.dul at quark.net wrote:
> Quoting Michael.Dillon at radianz.com:
>> Now the board of trustees did note this as an issue and referred the
>> policy proposal back to the AC. But the AC did not address the privacy
>> issue at all. They simply bounced it back to the BoT with a note that
>> had "discussed" the issue.
>> This is a flawed policy proposal. It claims to improve residential
>> and yet it does not remove all the data which identifies the residential
> We did discuss the issue and I personally believed that there was not a
> substantial issue here to consider. I agree that the text of the policy
> probably could have been written better to be clearer.
> I do not understand how you feel that the following showing up in whois
> is a privacy concern.
> Private Customer
> Private Address
> Seattle, WA 98102
> I believe this was the intent of the policy. If you and/or others feel
> that this was not the intent then we need a new policy to clarify this
> by using the exact fields and the exact text that should appear for
> residential customers.
> Andrew Dul
> ARIN AC
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML