RE: full integrity?

From: Dan Greening ^lt;>
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 17:26:47 EDT

I like the "telling them to stuff it" idea over providing false

You could choose to send a generic error message that doesn't
distinguish between a policy rejection and a system inability to provide
the location. This way a recipient can't tell if it's the policy or the
infrastructure that is causing the problem. There are some problems
with providing false information. If recipients act on that false
information, it seems to me that lawsuits are highly likely.

Dan Greening, Ph.D. CEO, BigTribe Corporation
              330 Townsend Street, Suite 209, San Francisco, CA
     +1(415)995-7151 fax 995-7155

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush []
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Randall Gellens
Cc: Dan Greening;
Subject: RE: full integrity?

> I was trying to get an idea of how wg participants felt about
> accuracy adjustments being the primary method of disclosure control,
> as opposed to also allowing multiple locations.
> The example I gave was in the context of some protocol where geopriv
> is used, I ask you for something, before you reply you ask me for my
> location. I don't want you to know where I am. I can either send
> you a vague location, or I can send you multiple locations, one of
> which is correct.

or i can tell you to stuff it. this would be my default mode.
though, for my mobile phone, i am tempted to allow folk to know
in what time zone i am, or, more usefully to them, what time of
day it is where my mobile phone is.

Received on Wed May 22 17:28:01 2002

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