Subject: RE: [Enum] User ENUM vs Operator ENUM

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:53:54 -0400

> Jim Reid wrote:
> That's beside the point. If you someone puts their email address into
> their ENUM zone -- not an unreasonable thing to do -- they may not be
> aware that their address will be trivially harvested by spambots. Or
> how about the example I gave yesterday where I put something in my
> zone to reject inbound calls to my GSM number because I won't pay
> international roaming when I'm overseas? In other words, Jim's house
> is empty, so any burglars can come on down. There's a *lot* more to
> ENUM's privacy considerations than the advertisement (or not) of a
> phone number.
>
[Richard>] 
This privacy discussion on ENUM always gets paranoic.

As Wazlawik said: "You cannot not communicate" 

If you live in a real world, and want to communicate with
Others, you always have to disclose privacy information.

Take your GSM example: Turning on my mobile in London also
discloses to anybody calling me that I am not at home, because
of the ring-tone. In Hongkong they even sold a feature hiding
China ring-tone.

So if somebody puts an entry in ENUM, he wants to communicate.
If he does not want to communicate, he should not put the information
in. If he only puts a URI with the same or any number in, he is
only disclosing that the number exists. This also can be found
out by an automatic dialler, so what?

Richard

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:10:32 -0400

>>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at> writes:

    Richard> So if somebody puts an entry in ENUM, he wants to
    Richard> communicate.  If he does not want to communicate, he
    Richard> should not put the information in. If he only puts a URI
    Richard> with the same or any number in, he is only disclosing
    Richard> that the number exists. This also can be found out by an
    Richard> automatic dialler, so what?

You and I know that. Someone like my mother won't. I think the WG
can't simply ignore the privacy concerns that ENUM creates. This
doesn't mean all of these concerns have to be solved: that's probably
impossible. I do think the WG should produce some sort of document on
the privacy issues, even if it's just to say "if you stick NAPTRs into
your zone, this might release more information than you realise and
that might result in unexpected, possibly unpleasant consequences".

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:23:49 -0400

Stastny and all,

> This privacy discussion on ENUM always gets paranoic.

Yes it often does.  Unfortunately the paranoia is often on the
side of those that don't wish to take the responsibility or
taking the available steps in protecting private information
using already available technical means, to put it simply.

> Others, you always have to disclose privacy information.

  Terms like "Always" and "Never" are absolutes.  They are not
reasonable to be used in the real world and a world where technically
available means to protect personal and private information such as
an ENUM number listing in DNS records is easily possible and can
be done.

> of the ring-tone. In Hongkong they even sold a feature hiding

  And my cell phone that I have for China I can set the caller-id
to on or off and in doing so protect my privacy at that level.

> in.

  This is overly simplistic and incorrect as stated.  Any ENUM entry
can be "not listed" as to available to operator access or anyone
else's access to that data element.

> If he only puts a URI with the same or any number in, he is

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827