Caller ID legal issues (was: caller ID and implementer's guid e)

[Chris Purvis]

Matt,

With respect, what implementations do IS our business - at least to the
extent of ensuring that it should be clear from the standard how to
implement something that is both sensible and compliant.  Several problems
in the implementation of standards (and, worse, inoperabilities between
implementations of the standards) have arisen from contributors to standards
bodies NOT considering implementation.

Regards,
Chris
--
Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software
Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks.  ENGLAND
Phone: +44 1753 661 359  email: cpurvis at madge.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Holdrege [mailto:matt at ASCEND.COM]
> Sent: 13 May 1999 6:46
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Re: Caller ID legal issues (was: caller ID and implementer's
> guid e)
>
>
> All this means is that the protocol must allow flexibility.
> For example, it
> must be able to transport the caller-id presentation restriction and
> caller-id screening indicator. What the implementations do
> with that is not
> our business.
>
>
> At 01:02 PM 5/13/99 -0400, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> >I'm not sure about the first, except that many jurisdictions
> require support
> >of emergency services such (e.g. 911 in North America).  There are
> >definitely regulatory jurisdictions requiring "presentation
> restricted".
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Long [SMTP:Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 10:41 AM
> >> To:   ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> >> Subject:      Caller ID legal issues (was: caller ID and
> implementer's
> >> guide)
> >>
> >> (I am straying from the original topic, so I changed the Subject.)
> >>
> >> This is not a standards-related issue, so we can end this thread if
> >> someone
> >> objects, but I was wondering about the legal ramifications
> of caller ID.
> >> Are
> >> there laws in some countries that require the following,
> or is it just
> >> considered good etiquette and/or a market-driven feature?
> >>
> >> Caller ID to be transmitted if provided by the caller
> >>
> >> Caller ID not to be displayed to the called party if so
> requested by the
> >> caller ("presentation restricted")
> >>
> >> Paul Long
> >> Smith Micro Software, Inc.
> >>
> >>         -----Original Message-----
> >>         From:   Chris Purvis [SMTP:Chris.Purvis at MADGE.COM]
> >>         Sent:   Thursday, May 13, 1999 8:28 AM
> >>         To:     ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> >>         Subject:        Re: caller ID and implementer's guide
> >>
> >>         Pete,
> >>
> >>         Just a note about the security matter you mention.
> >>         Some PC based H.323 endpoints allow one, with just a little
> >> knowledge,
> >> to
> >>         persuade them to output debugging which includes
> all elements of
> >> decoded
> >>         RAS/Q.931-H.225.0/H.245 messages.  This is clearly
> "undesirable"
> >> when
> >>         security of information contained in such messages
> is required!
> >> It
> >> also
> >>         might be quite hard for some people to switch off.
> >>         I don't have a solution to this: I just raise it
> as an issue.
> >>
> >>         Regards,
> >>         Chris
> >>         --
> >>         Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer,
> WAVE CC Software
> >>         Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood
> Road, Wexham, Berks.
> >> ENGLAND
> >>         Phone: +44 1753 661 359  email: cpurvis at madge.com
> >>
> >
>