+1
During the P3P too-and-fro on what constituted PII I lost the argument
that masking off the last bits constituted acceptable non-disclosure
of PII.
Additionally, viewing the long/lat of a property where b/w and
addresses are provisioned as the legal entity which owns the building
seems odd.
Eric
On 8/4/10 3:46 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Steven Bellovin<s...@cs.columbia.edu>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 1:35 17AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Franck Martin<fra...@genius.com> wrote:
If it is a business, then accurate address does not seem to me an
issue, if it is a private address, I think a bit of fuzziness is
helpful
An apartment complex/condo/etc is a business which contains private
addresses.
Do you sell to the residents directly or do you sell to the apartment
complex which then resells to individual residents?
If the former then you're basically off the hook for anybody who
doesn't get a /29 or larger.
For the latter, you're providing significant amounts of a public
resource (IP addresses) to a business whose contact information you're
contractually and ethically obligated to reveal. If a particular
complex is worried about publishing their location, they can always
rent a P.O. box. If you're the only one doing the worrying, don't.
I strongly disagree -- you're revealing the precise address of any tenant
in those buildings. Don't do that...
Chiming in: I would tend to agree with smb on this particular issue --
that's a bit *too* precise.
- - ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)
wj8DBQFMWcNoq1pz9mNUZTMRArbvAJ9ymAZzgf/hlOVPWQtTj3GcGCFKaACff7Hy
bMw7Gg6uZObU4cPmoDU9TK4=
=mrQI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
