Subject: RE: [Sipping] I-D ACTION:draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-02.txt

From: David Oliver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:07:00 -0500

Henning,

One nit and one comment on 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-sipping-sos-02.txt:

4 Request Handling (nit):

s/a outbound/an outbound/

6 Security Considerations:

The most important reason for providing traceability of emergency calls is
to maximize the chance of emergency services reaching the user in good time,
even if the user is incapacitated, the equipment fails or the connection
breaks. Such events are probable in emergency scenarios such as heart
attack, building fire, or a holdup.

It is reasonable to override established security and privacy rules for
emergency calls, providing the practice is appropriately publicized, and the
mechanism is distinctive (e.g. an "sos" URI), so users cannot accidentally
have their expectations bypassed. The legal implications should be minimized
by the distinctive mechanism (together with language in service provider
contracts). Many jurisdictions providing strong privacy rights allow for
call tracing and cell phone location for emergency calls only; conversely, a
person calling the police on their standard PSTN number to make an anonymous
report would expect normal privacy.

Regards,

David C. Oliver
Principal Engineer
SecureLogix Corp
Email: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
Tel:   210.402.9669
Fax:   210.402.6996 

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:43:27 -0400

There was already a U.S court case (Supreme Court possibly - would need to 
dig that up) that ruled that (and as a non-lawyer I paraphrase) in essence 
by dialing "911" the user had essentially waived any expectations of privacy.

Furthermore, there are additional legal requirements placed on network 
service providers when delivering 911 calls.  In the case of mobile 
networks, this would include geographic location information.

I wonder what NENA will do when people start using SIP to dial an emergency 
call.

Mike

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:45:06 -0400

Michael Hammer wrote:
> There was already a U.S court case (Supreme Court possibly - would need 
> to dig that up) that ruled that (and as a non-lawyer I paraphrase) in 
> essence by dialing "911" the user had essentially waived any 
> expectations of privacy.
> 
> I wonder what NENA will do when people start using SIP to dial an 
> emergency call.

They have a "migration working group" (MIGWG) looking at this and 
related problems (albeit with a somewhat narrower focus). I'm part of 
that working group.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:08:53 -0400

See http://www.epic.org/privacy/caller_id/fcc_final.html for the 
relevant FCC regulations for caller ID blocking. If somebody has a more 
definitive pointer (law, as opposed to Federal Regulation), please let 
me know.