[ppml] Collapsing Residential and Business Privacy

[Martin Hannigan]

At 12:45 PM 4/21/2006, Sam Weiler wrote:

> > - reduction of NA postal codes to 3 characters
>
>Not so fine.  I haven't seen any analysis non-US postal codes
>suggestion this is reasonable.  I'm not even convonced it's reasonable
>in the US.  I'd prefer to see an argument for why we still need
>partial postal codes -- what use do they serve?


As I explained at the meeting, whois data, particularly city,
state, zip+5 is used as an input to triangulate an address for
geo-location applications. It is one of multiple inputs. Geo location
takes multiple inputs and tries to get them all to agree, much like
ntp, and then adjusts based on the responses of the inputs. Losing
all location data in whois @ /29 does not really kill geo-locators,
but it definately is valuable in the process.

There are far more codes than just USPS or Canada Post to consider.

I should have gone and looked at this sooner. I'm surprised by some
of the areas listed here. I think before anything is done to the
postal code, business or residential, there's going to need to be
quite a bit of research in order to reach a fair balance. The balance
I'm talking about is the use of the postal code in geo-location,
eCommerce credit card fraud prevention, and other applications vs.
increasing residential privacy.

ANGUILLA
ANTARCTICA
ANTIGUA
BAHAMAS
BARBADOS
BERMUDA
BOUVET ISLAND
CANADA
CAYMAN ISLANDS
DOMINICA
GRENADA
GUADELOUPE
HEARD AND MC DONALD ISLANDS
JAMAICA
MARTINIQUE
PUERTO RICO
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
ST. HELENA
ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS
UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
VIRGIN ISLANDS (BRITISH)
VIRGIN ISLANDS (U.S.)

Source: http://www.arin.net/community/ARINcountries.html

Can you adjust your presentation on 5 digit (in)security to
do an apples for apples 3 vs. 5 and post it somewhere?


> > - creating a confidential/undercover registration clause ...
>
>No.  Unless they get a statutory exemption, LEAs can operate under the
>same rules as everyone else -- let's not complicate our policy to
>accomodate them.

This isn't giving the LEA's anything that they don't already
have, this is resolving something that a provider of services to USGC
organizations brought up. I'm not 100% sure what David is trying to get
at since I heard HIPAA compliance thrown into the mix, but it's probably
his turn to defend if this solves his problem or not. I'm trying to be
"helpful" since I have a large amount of LEA experience in Title III
and CALEA and I'm familiar with the process and regulations surrounding
lawful orders as a result.

-M<






--
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff                      Network Operations
                                                hannigan at renesys.com