RE: full integrity?

From: Dan Greening ^lt;>
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 21:04:46 EDT

I think it's more of a MAY NOT. The privacy platform MAY NOT allow
users to provide false information, but MUST allow rule-makers to reject
location requests. If the privacy platform allows users to provide
false information it MUST indicate that capability somehow to external
systems (like through a configuration-query).

So if I'm in Randy, or visa versa, then some platforms will allow me to
say I'm in Sally, while others will allow me to say "location not
available". However, those platforms that allow me to provide false
information need to identify themselves as such.

(I love privacy examples, they're so *dirty* :)

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: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Dan Greening
Cc: Randy Bush; Randall Gellens;;
Subject: Re: full integrity?

> I like the "telling them to stuff it" idea over providing false
> information.
> You could choose to send a generic error message that doesn't
> distinguish between a policy rejection and a system inability to
> the location. This way a recipient can't tell if it's the policy or
> 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.

Ah, I'm _with_ Randy. In fact, I'm in the same resolution cell. Heck, I
Randy. What part of this rates a MUST NOT, assuming Randy and I are
adults (with obscure peering arraingements)? For what technical reason?

Received on Wed May 22 21:05:51 2002

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