[arin-ppml] Fwd: Fraud reporting question

[Rob Seastrom]

Looks like I managed to send this on Thursday from the wrong address.  Oops. 

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Seastrom 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
> Date: June 24, 2015 at 1:34:20 PM EDT
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>, "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> 
> 
> On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jun 24, 2015, at 05:53 , Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson <richardj at arin.net> wrote:
>>>> Hello Adam,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. 
>>>> 
>>>> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources.
>>>> 
>>>> According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation.
>>>> 
>>>>  That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760.
>>> 
>>> There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me.
>>> 
>>> Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported.
>>> 
>>> That's possible, but I think this raises a  question. What exactly is fraud? Generally, my guess is the only person who has any clue as to what a fraud is or if its been committed is the person filling out the application. The numbers are generally null because it's near undetectable other than a whistle blower coming forward.
>> 
>> I’ll let ARIN staff give the definitive answer, but my understanding (which may not be 100% correct but should be relatively close) is addresses obtained or held in a manner inconsistent with the policies stated in the NRPM and/or in violation of the RSA.
> 
> I can't speak to mail received at the fraud reporting address, however I can speak to the mailing list AUP address since I've served on the AUP committee.
> 
> During my tenure, the vast majority of complaints received at the AUP address are from individuals who have mistaken ARIN for the Internet Police.   Complaints about spam, firewall alerts, or similar such things were the order of the day.  In-scope complaints about individuals' conduct on the list were the rare exception.
> 
> It would certainly not surprise me if the 98% of "fraud reports" contain a lot of that sort of thing.  It's hard to produce meaningful statistics against such a high-noise source; allowing complaints that are out of scope to not be counted at all would be a defeat for transparency.  At the same time, publishing an unexpurgated archive of all the complaints has its own set of concerns.
> 
> -r
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150629/e8e71a7a/attachment.htm>