Subject: Abstraction from existing technologies

From: Christian Hauser <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:35:14 +0200 (MEST)

Hello,

due to recent discussions, I have some comments.

First of all, as this is an IETF-WG, we seem to focus too much on UMTS and
other mobile (and already existing) technologies. Im my opinion, we should
discuss issues regarding any imaginable platform, because future systems will
bring much more sophisticated features regarding location support than
nowaday's. I think, considering only current technologies would restrict our minds
too much. 

For that reason, I wonder if it would help to just assume one arbitrary
party having the users' location information. Whether this is the location
database of a UMTS provider, any other third party (e.g. a new Location Service), a
combination of those or something else is not very relevant in my opinion.
This entity maintains all the location information, arising about the users
(e.g. the location information from the mobile network operator, from the
users' GPS device, from any other locating infrastructure like Active Badges or
whatever is imaginable).

This entity would know very accurate location information about the users.
Because that information has to be prevented from being linked to the users'
identities (as I depicted in my mail from July, 12th), this Location Service
must be usable pseudonymously.

Everyone, needing location information has to query this Location Service
(except of course the mobile device using its own GPS information). Therefore,
the access rights (or the profiles) are needed just there. In my opinion,
this entity does not need to distinguish different applications querying
location information, because it just needs to offer a simple interface for
accessing location information (perhaps a query about an object's position and a
query about all objects in a given area). So the profile simply needs to contain
the permissions, querying subjects have regarding location information of a
target (like max. allowed accuracy, time, max. frequency of queries, location
dependent restrictions, ...). Of course, in the case a third party (e.g. a
tracking service) queries in behalf of another user, the permissions of this
user have to be relevant for accessing the location information.

So, what I would propose is, that we try to find privacy issues and
mechanisms / principles to deal with these issues, regardless of any possible (or
existing) implementation in order to find universal solutions being applicable
for whatever future will bring.

Is this the view you share?

Best regards

Christian Hauser

Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering
University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 47, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

-- 
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net

---

From: Dante Castiglione <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 01:08:39 -0300

I have found something that (maybe) makes a difference: today I was
exploring a route that I do not knew, near my town. A couple of times, I
really wanted to know my position.

Let's suppose I had a portable device in the car, with a GPS included. I
cannot have every map loaded... so... a latitude/longitude position would
have been useless. What I needed to know was road number/name and driving
directions to the main local route.

Should there exist a standard way for a device to query a server requesting
maps and/or data and/or driving directions for an area?

Regards,

Dante Castiglione
[email-masked]

UBICAT S.A.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Hauser [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 11:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Abstraction from existing technologies

Hello,

First of all, as this is an IETF-WG, we seem to focus too much on UMTS and
other mobile (and already existing) technologies. Im my opinion, we should
discuss issues regarding any imaginable platform, because future systems
will
bring much more sophisticated features regarding location support than
nowaday's. I think, considering only current technologies would restrict our
minds
too much.

For that reason, I wonder if it would help to just assume one arbitrary
party having the users' location information. Whether this is the location
database of a UMTS provider, any other third party (e.g. a new Location
Service), a
combination of those or something else is not very relevant in my opinion.
This entity maintains all the location information, arising about the users
(e.g. the location information from the mobile network operator, from the
users' GPS device, from any other locating infrastructure like Active Badges
or
whatever is imaginable).

Everyone, needing location information has to query this Location Service
(except of course the mobile device using its own GPS information).
Therefore,
the access rights (or the profiles) are needed just there. In my opinion,
this entity does not need to distinguish different applications querying
location information, because it just needs to offer a simple interface for
accessing location information (perhaps a query about an object's position
and a
query about all objects in a given area). So the profile simply needs to
contain
the permissions, querying subjects have regarding location information of a
target (like max. allowed accuracy, time, max. frequency of queries,
location
dependent restrictions, ...). Of course, in the case a third party (e.g. a
tracking service) queries in behalf of another user, the permissions of this
user have to be relevant for accessing the location information.

So, what I would propose is, that we try to find privacy issues and
mechanisms / principles to deal with these issues, regardless of any
possible (or
existing) implementation in order to find universal solutions being
applicable
for whatever future will bring.

Best regards

Christian Hauser

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:45:43 -0700

> maps and/or data and/or driving directions for an area?

possibly.  but it's not in the charter of this wg.  how about working on the
cake before looking at the 10,000 flavors of icing?

randy

---

From: Shahid Shoaib <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:10:31 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Hauser" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Abstraction from existing technologies

will
> nowaday's. I think, considering only current technologies would restrict
our minds

I agree. The privacy framework needs to have universal applicability. I
guess more discussion has been focused on UMTS becuase it is the most
obvious example.

Service), a
> users' GPS device, from any other locating infrastructure like Active
Badges or

With the user roaming through hetrogeneous networks operated by different
service providers, how will trust relationships be defined between the user
and the service providers and between the service providers themselves. I
think the privacy of privacy policies is going to be another issue.

> must be usable pseudonymously.

The problem is that where ever the mobile user goes, he has to be
authenticated first. For example, if the user moves from a UMTS network
outside to a WLAN network inside a building, he will need to be
authenticated by the WLAN operator, which will reveal his identity and
location to the WLAN operator.

possible (or
applicable
> for whatever future will bring.

Agreed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Shahid Shoaib                                  +1-408-451-4740 Direct
DoCoMo USA Labs Inc.                  +1-408-573-1090 Fax
[email-masked]         http://www.docomo-usa.com

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:19:55 -0500

>cake before looking at the 10,000 flavors of icing?

Unless I'm mistaken, this charter does cover it. In the near future when a user
subscribes to a location service that provides location of other devices via
this (then) new GEOPRIV Protocol, they (a client) can ask to get the location
of any device (a server) they are authorized to request the location of,
including one's self (or an IP device close to one's self like a pager or cell
phone), thereby providing to one's self where they specifically are (depending
on the granularity/accuracy of this service). Regardless if this is one process
interacting directly with another process within the same physical device, or
outwards through a Proxy or Location Server.

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
18581 N. Dallas Parkway
Dallas, Texas 75287
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com

---

From: Shahid Shoaib <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:38:34 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: James M. Polk
To: Randy Bush ; Dante Castiglione
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: What makes a 'position' usefull?

>Unless I'm mistaken, this charter does cover it. In the near future when a
user subscribes to a location service that provides >location of other
devices via this (then) new GEOPRIV Protocol, they (a client) can ask to get
the location of any device (a server) >they are authorized to request the
location of, including one's self (or an IP device close to one's self like
a pager or cell phone), >thereby providing to one's self where they
specifically are (depending on the granularity/accuracy of this service).
Regardless if >this is one process interacting directly with another process
within the same physical device, or outwards through a Proxy or >Location
Server.

I understand your point. But after you know the location of an entity,
figuring out how to get there might just be a case of pressing a button that
sends two pairs of coordinates to some anonymous navigation system (e.g.
mapquest)

-------

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:06:47 -0500

Shahid

comments below

>sends two pairs of coordinates to some anonymous navigation system (e.g.

Conceptually I agree -- I don't think this is a Protocol issue anymore at that
point; and I admit I should have included that in my first email. 

I believe if the first Client asks what the relative or absolute distance is
from/to a "Target" device at some location, once two locations are determined
(by querying both device's servers or relying on a Proxy for either or both
devices), some App server can deduce how to navigate a map or some other
requirement between the two locations (proximity, relative speeds and Doppler
speed, etc). If this is possible, then you won't have to "push any button" as
you state, the initial feedback from the first Client's Loc SP could be what
you initially asked for.

That should be the onus of the Location Service Providers to offer as a
competitive advantage for joining their service instead of someone else's, IMO.

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
18581 N. Dallas Parkway
Dallas, Texas 75287
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com