On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:04:47 EDT, William Herrin said: >> If you feel that way, I suggest you take the issue up on the ARIN >> public policy mailing list. Solicit public consensus for a change in >> handling for SWIPs for "apartment complexes as ISP resellers." Absent >> such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment >> management company remains simple fraud. > > I'm not at all convinced that mere redaction qualifies as fraud. It certainly > qualifies as *deceptive* - but does it rise to "fraudulent"? Is the fact > that > I use a Mail Boxes Etc-type service and don't accept mail at my home address > because it's a very physically insecure mailbox fraudulent? Yes, it's > somewhat > deceptive, because it's not my actual home address. But unless you stretch > "deception for personal gain" to the point where "gain" is "I don't want mail > stolen from my mailbox", I don't think it's actual fraud.
Valdis, It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.) constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
