Re: AW: AW: AW: [Sipping-tispan] TISPAN requirements, first requiements

Below.

Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Hi Michael:
> 
> Inline answers.
> 
> Michael Hammer (mhammer) wrote:
> 
>> Miguel,
>>
>> Does it matter that an "anonymous" call is showing up at the phone?  How
>> long do you think before the recipient figures out that only an
>> "authority" could force such calls to him despite anonymous call
>> blocking?
>>
> 
> As I understand the regulatory service, it does not matter if 
> "anonymous" is shown at the phone.
> 
> I agree that it can be easily derived, but the service does not intend 
> to address this issue.
> 
> This is the same situation we have today when someone calls me 
> anonymous. Actually, there is only one person who typically calls me 
> anonymously, so when he calls, I always answer the phone with "Hello 
> Jim" (Jim is not actually his name). But you get the idea, right?
> 
> 
>> That lead me to wonder whether the call had to assert a bogus calling
>> party number?  And if so, wouldn't it be better to assert an identity
>> controlled from the original domain of the call?  And if so, why even
>> bother follow-on networks with additional work to do to manipulate
>> headers for override, when the originating network could construct a
>> perfectly "non-anonymous" call?  Seems like this could be simpler.
> 
> 
> Well, I am not sure if that will work at all. Essentially this requires 
> to allocate a bunch of bogus identities to those authorities that can 
> bypass ACR. Anonymity will be achieved by having a large number of bogus 
> identities, and having the UAC software able to change the identity on 
> every call to the same callee (otherwise, the callee will know who is 
> ringing the second time).
> 
> Still it won't solve the issue of what happens if that authority selects 
> the "anonymity" button in his UAC, and does an anonymous call? If you 
> read the european privacy act (referred to in this list a few days ago), 
>  the call will not go through if the calle has ACR activated, and most 
> likely, the operatore will be responsible for it. Perhaps something that 
> we shouldn't be taking a risk on.
>
[PTT] I still don't understand.  Why would a bunch of bogus identities 
have to be allocated?  Why can't the common identity: "Official" be 
used, for instance?

...

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
Sipping-tispan@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan