Privacy
Privacy on networks, especially wireless networks, has become a very important requirement for systems. This concept flies in the face of traditional design where a fixed number is used to identify a device. (Typically a MAC address burned into the device) When a fixed address is used, this address can be used to track a device as it moves about and connects to a network. When the device is only connected to a company network, this issue isn’t that big a deal. However, when these devices connect in public networks the opportunity arises where an arbitrary entity can track the location of that device and by inference the owner of that device.
In an example of how times can change quickly, the ability to track a user was originally considered a feature of Bluetooth wireless technology. While there are still many services and business models that can benefit from this “feature” the current thinking is that a user should be required to opt into such a service. If the user doesn’t do so, they can remain private.
The existing Bluetooth specification allow for a device to be tracked during a conversation or during the connection process. In order to provide complete privacy for a user, the Bluetooth SIG has taken the unprecedented step to define in its roadmap features that make it impossible to track a device of a user that doesn’t want its true identity to be exposed. The first of these features hiding the identity of a user during an active connection will be specified in the 2005 version of the speciation. This is a major enhancement and demonstrates the leadership that the Bluetooth SIG is taking in the area of privacy. No other connectivity solution, wired or wireless, is taking these strides to ensure that users of the technology can maintain total privacy.
posted by Mike Foley at 9:15 PM
1 Comments:
I'm concerned that the Bluetooth Org standards to ensure interoperability have become "toothless". Many car manufacturers including Nissan, BMW, Mercedes and Toyota now specify which phones will work with their cars, and even this differs by model year. Expecting Bluetooth to be at least as interoperable as Wi-Fi I was flabbergasted when Infiniti told me that my AT&T 8525 was the cause of my M35 console freeze which made all functions including climate control, radio, CD, navigation, fan and backup camera unusable. Their first offer was another phone! But their IS no there is no other phone with a slide out keyboard, MS O/S, voice recognition, Wi-Fi, MS Office and Bluetooth. I rejected the notion that I should give up these features simply because they are out of compliance wit the Bluetooth standard. Now I discover many other car companies are in violation of their agreement to be interoperable and therefore infringe upon the Bluetooth trademark and its intellectual property license. I am told, disingenuously I think, that actions taken against companies that are part of the Bluetooth Organization cannot be revealed based on their privacy rights. However, if they are allowed to continue being arbiters of a standard they do not own by specifying which phones may be used in their cars then all of us that purchase multi-function phones will eventually find Bluetooth useless since we will be unable to be assured that our phones will work with any car that uses the Bluetooth trademark. Should this happen, both the trademark and intellectual propery rights of Bluetooth will be of no value simply becuase they were not defended.
Post a Comment
<< Home