From owner-sig-db@lists.apnic.net Mon Nov 27 08:44:23 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA112898; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from guardian.apnic.net (guardian.apnic.net [203.37.255.100]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA112894 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15031 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:44:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hadrian.staff.apnic.net(192.168.1.1) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma015028; Mon, 27 Nov 00 08:43:57 +1000 Received: from apnic.net (wrk-21.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.83]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09967 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:43:55 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3A21927E.5C44A515@apnic.net> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:45:18 +1000 From: Paul Gampe Organization: APNIC Pty. Ltd. http://www.apnic.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sig-db@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-db] [Fwd: Privacy, Broadband, & the Database] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------D38BFBC39D3E7AE147B5EB42" Sender: owner-sig-db@lists.apnic.net Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D38BFBC39D3E7AE147B5EB42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI: A similar discussion to that raised at the recent APNIC meeting with respect to personal information disclosure in the database. Paulg. --------------D38BFBC39D3E7AE147B5EB42 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from guardian.apnic.net (int-gw.staff.apnic.net [192.168.1.254]) by hadrian.staff.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13114 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:06:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by guardian.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23240 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:06:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from whois1.apnic.net(203.37.255.98) by int-gw.staff.apnic.net via smap (V2.1) id xma023232; Thu, 23 Nov 00 18:06:11 +1000 Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by ns.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA114834 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:05:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15481 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2000 08:05:46 -0000 Delivered-To: lists-db-wg-out@lists.ripe.net Received: (qmail 15478 invoked by uid 66); 23 Nov 2000 08:05:46 -0000 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:21:50 +0000 From: Sam Bradford To: db-wg@ripe.net Cc: "demon.hm" , Recorded Mail Subject: Privacy, Broadband, & the Database Message-ID: <20001122152150.A87420@demon.net> Reply-To: Sam Bradford Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-db-wg@ripe.net Precedence: bulk Hello all. (Apologies if you got a 'subscribe' message from me earlier. I wasn't thinking about Majordomo for some reason.) I'm writing for your opinions, suggestions, and comments regarding updating the RIPE database with assignments made for broadband (xDSL) customers. As you may or may not be aware, ADSL is now being offered in the UK, which has very strict data protection laws. We offer ADSL services as a NATted service (with one large entry in the RIPE database like for dial-up customers) and a non-NAT service that includes an IP assignment. Our concern is that a large percentage of our non-NAT ADSL customers are either home users or home businesses. Updating the RIPE database with an IP assignment requires an end-user Admin contact, and the person object requires a telephone number. Worst case scenario is that we update the database for a home business or a home user with the customer's telephone number, his teenage daughter enters a chat room, and you can imagine the rest... After brief consultation with the RIPE NCC Hostmasters, we have begun updating the database with our role object as Tech Contact and the customer as Admin contact. For the phone number, we are using our own, noting as much in a 'remarks' field. For example: inetnum: 62.49.8.64 - 62.49.8.79 netname: PYAR-ADSL descr: DEMON ADSL CUSTOMER country: GB admin-c: PY84-RIPE tech-c: DHG5-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA notify: hostmaster@demon.net mnt-by: AS2529-MNT changed: hostmaster@demon.net 20001115 source: RIPE person: Phil Yarranton address: GB phone: +44-845-272-0444 nic-hdl: PY84-RIPE remarks: Phone is Demon Internet Helpdesk notify: hostmaster@demon.net mnt-by: AS2529-MNT changed: hostmaster@demon.net 20001115 source: RIPE However, I'm not sure that is the best option, and could lead to inconsistency. At what point do we determine (and should we determine?) if an obvoius business customer is home-based or office-based? Should we have one set of rules for the database for leased line & ISDN customers and another for ADSL? Or one set for business customers (regardless of home-based or office-based) and another for home users? Looking forward to your comments. :-) Sam Bradford ----------------------------------------------------------------- sam bradford, senior hostmaster sam.bradford@demon.net Demon Internet / Thus plc . hostmaster@demon.net Tel: +44-845-272-0666 . . http://www.demon.net/ Fax: +44-20-8371-1285 t h u s http://www.thus.net/ --------------D38BFBC39D3E7AE147B5EB42-- * sig-db: APNIC SIG on whois database issues * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-db-request@apnic.net *