I am reading the draft document now. A couple of questions/suggestions:
1. Perhaps a more "serious" element name than "liar"? I agree that the
ability to provide a replacement location has value and is definitely easier
than trying to obscure one's location. But . . .
2. What happens in an emergency call situation? The NENA folks might wonder.
Perhaps some words on the emergency call use case.
3. There might be some interesting legal issues here. Also perhaps has some
counter-terrorism or drug interdiction implications. Of course, if law
enforcement can always get "true" location from the location determination
provider or mobile device or mobile provider perhaps this is not an issue.
Anyway, I passed this document to the folks at the Center for Spatial Law
and Policy to see if they have any comments. Location and privacy policy is
a big issue for them.
Regards
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
To: <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] New Version Notification
fordraft-thomson-geopriv-lying-00.txt
> On 2011-06-29 at 16:49:48, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>> A new version of I-D, draft-thomson-geopriv-lying-00.txt has been
>> successfully submitted by Martin Thomson and posted to the IETF
>> repository.
>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-lying>
>
> I think that the Abstract summarizes this best:
>
>> Abstract:
>> Obscuring location effectively is difficult. Falsehood offers a
>> simpler, more effective method of location privacy protection. A
>> mechanism is defined whereby a rule maker can request that a
>> location server lie about location.
>
> The mechanism is an extension to geopriv-policy.
>
> --Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
