Presence and IntComm WG

["john p. streck" <>]

Candace,
Sorry but I just read this this morning so I am just getting to respond. The last paragraph is of personal
interest. In my mind how it is done very conditional (no one rule for all occasions.)  I am very much against anonymous subscriptions
except for things like news groups where the information presented could be real or fiction and it
is up to the reader to cross verify.  For spheres where I pay for a service or have some agreed to 
AUP, I want all a uniform policy of either full identification or total masking of identities.  


just some thoughts.
john

ps: these opinions are mine and not those of NCSU or any other organization.  (I like Bradner's disclaimer.)


On Feb 18, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Candace Holman wrote:

> We started this discussion to talk about the social controversy space in technology decisions that are being made for PIC/ALS, and collect some ideas for a paper.  I'm new to this list, but expected more argument.
>
> Jeremy said:
> "...the centralized architecture favors the government in that it has
> a single point to tap with an appropriate court order.  The latter [edge architecture] presents a technical barrier to that law enforcement approach.  Each stakeholder has a clearly defined interest and each of the architectures
> tilts the field."
>
> Let me become his devil's advocate, but anyone can answer these questions.  What kind of privacy can you provide with an edge server that doesn't work on a central server of similar design?   Tell me more about the technical barrier to law enforcement.  What would prevent the government from asking the service provider to provide a point to tap on the edge server?  What are the details?  What if the hackers wanted to do the tapping, is each type of server secured by the same means?
>
> If you don't want to address that issue, another social issue we can discuss has to do with anonymous subscription, protecting anonymity and preventing forged identity.  The teams are privacy pundits (civil liberties organizations, people who don't want to be stalked, criminals who don't want to be found, etc) vs data miners (marketing organizations, the customer who requires a follow-me communication service level from her consultant, homeland security agents, etc).  I think at this point in time we have both bases covered, but does anyone see technology decisions being made where one "team" is being favored over the other?
>
> Candace
John P. Streck PE
<x-tad-smaller>Director-Networking R&D, </x-tad-smaller>NC State University
Director NC-ITEC
<x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller>work:		919.515.0106<x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller>mobile	<x-tad-bigger>				 </x-tad-bigger>919.601.1647
work fax:					 919.513.1893
Email: 		
<x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>Mailing Address:
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>2620 Hillsborough Street</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>Raleigh</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller> </x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>North Carolina</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller> 
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>27695-7109</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>United States of America</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller>