Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

Good point, although I suspect that a business or individual that wants to disclose its name to the recipient and obviously already discloses its number to all carriers along the way seems unlikely to care that the carrier can also see its name. After all, today, all such carriers have access to CNAM information (along with others). At least in the US, the carriers are largely bound by strict privacy rules ("customer proprietary network information") that carriers tend to take very seriously. (I say "largely", because there may be entities such as CNAM providers and VoIP providers that are considering themselves not to be interconnected that are in the not-quite-carrier area.)

________________________________________
From: Stephen Farrell [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 10:17 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne; Richard Shockey; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [cnit] CNIT Charter bashing..

On 12/06/15 15:13, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> In almost all cases of interest, the calling party *wants* to
> disclose accurate information to the called party, so the privacy
> issues don't seem to arise. They would only arise if there was forced
> disclosure; I don't think anybody is proposing that.

Privacy issues could also arise if a middlebox could now see
sensitive information that it previously could not see. I think
that is independent of whether disclosure is desired by either
of the endpoints.

S.