Re: full integrity? (was: RE: Geopriv WG - meeting 5-6 Jun, other news)

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 20:46:44 EDT

At 03:26 PM 5/21/2002 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
>At 4:13 PM -0700 5/18/02, Aleksandar Gogic wrote:
>
>> Protection of location privacy can be achieved by willingness to
>> disclose it to a certain degree of precision, up to the point of
>> barring any disclosure. My point on integrity was that disclosure
>> to a level of precision is just as effective in protecting privacy,
>> as provision of deceitful information would be. In fact, a poorly
>> executed deceitful disclosure can be less effective.
>
>Earlier, wg participants expressed a desire to be able to transmit
>multiple locations, one of which was accurate, the rest bogus. Is
>this still desired, or are we happy with one location?

From where to where?

From me (via any associated device or 'inheritance') to my Server who'll be
answering anybody's request of my location, there should be one location
object transmitted. I don't know what interval is appropriate yet....

A 'pull' request to my Server where the Rule Maker controls my policy and
therefore the answers queried of it -- there should be as many locations
given as there are rules made for/by me (and any other target). I think
it'll likely end up being a fairly stable template over time that I move
people or classes of people from one to another category....

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Senior Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
Richardson, TX 75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com
Received on Tue May 21 20:48:22 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:23 EST