[asterisk-biz] ANI

[Trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 20:50 -0400, Bill Michaelson wrote:
> 
> 
> Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: 
> > While you arent proposing all of this, think for a second about how many
> > governments have been clamoring for something like this.  End to end
> > authentication is not always a good thing, it may be helpful in a couple
> > of situations but at what cost?
> >   
> You make a good point - essentially that the widespread acceptance and
> facility of this technology also facilitates abuse of another sort.  I
> agree that anonymity should be available.  Would it necessarily
> eliminate all channels of anonymous communication?  I don't think that
> is a foregone conclusion (nor do I think you are really suggesting it
> is).


no I was just cautioning against public key authenticated phone calls
because it is my belief if that were done via legislation it would
quickly be abused and applied to many other things.  If its not through
legislation you will find that few will want it since generally they
know who they are talking to.  Retailers/call centers may want it but
consumers have little desire, especially if it costs them something.

I do believe that covert data channels would persist, but the act of
trying to be anonymous in that day and age would itself look quite odd
and suspect, and if it got to that point probably illegal.  

This is why I took the time to comment on proposed legislation (I dont
see it viable any other way).  You never know what staffers of a senator
will read and suggest that "people have requested" relating to a
particular criminal problem that has emerged.  Then someone really does
enact it, or at least try :(

Back more on the thread, you have 2 basic paths you can take.  Use
clid/ani as indicators but not trusted information, and try to educate
people that its not reliable and to use common sense (ha!), or try to
come up with a way that it cant be spoofed, that anyone who places a
call will do so from their own number(s), etc which legislating that is
FAR easier than actually implementing it without taking away from
already existing services.  

The bill that I read on the federal level (which partly infringes on the
10th amendment, sigh), and what I read from florida all require deceit
or an attempt to cause harm.  It also places the burden on the caller
not the phone company (or itsp).  So really they wont do anything but
let them slap another charge on that will run at the same time as
everything else.  

I dont know that its our responsibility to come up with legislation and
redesign the pstn though, and even if we did in the most perfect way
would anyone that could implement it actually listen?


-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
Belfast +44 28 9099 6461        US +1 516 687 5200
http://www.trxtel.com the phone company that pays you!