On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 02:59:54PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote: > I was never so glad as to see something as the wide-scale deployment > of callerid a few years later.
But for Caller ID to work in cases like the one you describe, you wouldn't need to know the phone number (which often includes the location) of the caller; a "cryptographic blob" identifying their phone line would suffice. I am not a lawyer, but I believe IP addresses are considered personal data in some countries; the European Court of Justice is currently looking into the issue. I don't think it's impossible for a court to decide that because of this, providers should strip (submission) IP addresses from emails. Or perhaps one of the many tracking companies is already using this to correlate emails sent to website visits. This could lead to outrage among privacy activists and a call for providers to strip submission IP addresses. Hence I believe it is worth seeing if we can come up with guidelines on what information can be removed/redacted/cryptographically blobbed in email headers, so that senders' privacy is improved, yet the ability to block and fight abuse isn't significantly harmed. I do think the proposed charter is a bit too strong on the need to remove headers which, given comments here, probably isn't very helpful. I would be in favour of a more open-minded charter, but I do think there is a need for a WG like this one. Martijn.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Shutup mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup
