[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

lar at mwtcorp.net lar at mwtcorp.net
Fri Jan 29 13:01:27 EST 2010

I support petition.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
>> Behalf Of Joe Morgan
>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:02 AM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
>> abuse. The people who are honest about customer swip data would still
>> provide the actual customer name and would only hide the address and
>> phone number. If somebody wanted the malicious user removed from a
>> network they would still contact the person who the ip space has been
>> allocated too and who is ultimately responsible for it. I don't think
>> anyone here is trying to claim that they own the ip space or that they
>> want to harbor malicious users.
> I want enough information to call the end user directly or I want them
> to be able to call me and tell me that it looks like one of my servers
> is borked.  This isn't about the organizations wanting anonymity.  This
> does not offer the end user any benefit and adds only additional work
> for everyone involved for no benefit to anyone except those commercial
> transit providers who wish to hide their customer base.  How do we know
> that this would even make  much of a difference?

No matter what you "want" I know for a fact that only two of the SWIP's I've
filed has anyone on the other end that can even begin the understand what
your talking about. More often than not we end up dispatching a tech to
the customer location to help track down the offending machine if there's
a problem. We file the SWIP anyway as required.

We are talking about requiring disclosing information without the permission
of the end user. (I know ARIN already has that policy and IMHO it's NUTS!)
I have two /29's that I don't SWIP. The customer's have
insisted on it (we hard mask their outbound telephone calls also)
and they have a very good reason. The reason is obvious on it's face and it 
unlikely to be a problem site. To do otherwise would be negligent at best, 
at worst.

All the "list lawyers" have ruled that the common good and necessity of 
outweighs the privacy concerns of the users. Does anyone know of a court 
has made a ruling that supports that? I know that I used to be able to buy a
vehicle plate to owner name cross reference book. It is my understanding 
the a local court slapped it down. That is not public information.
The police can request the owner of a plate they see only if they have
some legitimate reason and are severly disciplined for requesting that
information for any other reason. You State/Locale may differ.

ARIN's policies need to have the flexibility to deal with the real world.
The real world and the court systems don't really care much about ARIN
policies nor the opinion of this list. Individual cases and reasonable 
has to have a place.

> I am not against commercial transit providers, in fact I am all for
> them.  In fact, anything that enhances competition tends to spur
> innovation and reduce my costs.  This doesn't seem like one of those
> things.

Larry Ash
Network Administrator
Mountain West Telephone
400 East 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list