RE: [Sipping-emergency] RE: Civil location syntax validation - wa s RE: How to handle Validation failures

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

Privacy concerns are one aspect of the authorization problem, sure. A lot of
it depends on what sort of information is exchanged in the routing query.
Realistically, I think that the revelation of the existence or non-existence
of an address does not intrinsically have privacy implications. Proximity of
addresses to one another is also, I believe, public information I could get
from Yahoo! Maps or Mapquest or something, and is not intrinsically a source
of privacy leakage. On the other hand, if you can use it to determine the
name of the family that lives at a particular address, or something, then
that's problematic.

Either way, I suspect that there will probably be a business model
associated with validation, and that people won't want to validate your
address gratis at will. As such, I imagine that there may be some
authorization policies surrounding all of this irrespective of privacy
anyway.

Of course, it makes sense to have some privacy text in the charter. It's
easier for me to see how a route query outside the context of validation
(for a real emergency call) has privacy implications. If validation is
essentially indistinguishable from validation, then the protocol will have
to provide the some privacy tools for both.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:04 PM
> To: Peterson, Jon
> Cc: 'Brian Rosen'; 'Marc Linsner'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Sipping-emergency] RE: Civil location syntax 
> validation -
> wa s RE: How to handle Validation failures
> 
> 
> inline.
> 
> Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 
> > So, just to make sure I understand, validation uses the same network
> > operation, basically, that would be used for a route query?
> > 
> > Agreed that it should be possible for a route query to 
> return 'I didn't
> > understand your address format', 'I understand your address 
> and it isn't
> > actually valid', and so on beyond just the sunny-day case 
> of returning the
> > route. Also, plus or minus some authorization and 
> operational issues, I
> > agree that an ordinary user should be able to launch this 
> sort of query
> > outside the context of an emergency call.
> 
> I'm not so sure of that.
> 
> It seems that there is a lot of very useful information in 
> this database 
> - which addresses exist, which do not, and information on the 
> relative 
> proximity of civil addresses to each other (two addresses that map to 
> the same ERC would be "close" in some way). As a result, I feel that 
> there are probably privacy implications of allowing worldwide open 
> access to this database. Seems like it would be mined by spammers to 
> validate mailing addresses, and used for all sorts of other nefarious 
> purposes.
> 
> Along those lines, I think it might be a good idea to 
> sprinkle some nice 
> words into the charter about taking into consideration 
> privacy concerns, 
> and properly balancing them with the needs of emergency call routing.
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
> Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
> dynamicsoft
> [e-mail]                     FAX:   [phone]
> http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: [phone]
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency