[VOIPSEC] Truths on "Truth in Caller ID Act"

[John Osmon]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:18:51AM -0700, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> John,
> 
> I like all your good arguments except:
> 
> >we're going to have "truth in Caller ID" and "network neutrality" 
> >laws that seriously hinder the growth of the telecommunications
> industry.
> 
> There are a significant number of Internet supporters (Including the
> ISOC/IETF, etc.) that would welcome exactly such laws. 

Yep.  And if they were fighting for physical layer neutrality, I'd be
supporting them.  If I have the right to use the fiber/copper in the
area to reach an ISP of my choosing, I can find one that routes all my
packets in a way that fits my idea of fair.

I want net neutrality at the *base* of the stack -- then I can choose an
ISP that delivers *my* concept of value. 

 
> Leaving Internet Neutrality aside, a cavalier attitude with "truth in
> Caller ID" should be in the same class of crimes as impersonation (see
> the HP saga in CA).

I have to admit that the use of the words "crimes of impersonation" 
give me a bit of pause.  However, there is already precedent set
for differing legal weight when different services are delivered over
the same medium:  faxes hold much more weight than voice conversations
in things like contract law.

Why should CallerID become sacrosanct just because it is delivered
on the same medium?  Do we need to start legislating the spoofed
IP packets that show up on that same copper pair riding DSL
signaling?  


Sorry to troll with the "net neutrality" bit above.  I admit to
using hyperbole to try to drive a point home.  Sorry if it
distracted from the point too much.