Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

2017-10-26

Status of Minutes

DRAFT

Approved at: <<Insert link to minutes showing approval>>

Attendees

Voting


Non-Voting

  • Chris Cooper
  • David Turner
  • Robert Lapes
  • Colin Wallis


Regrets

Quorum Status

Meeting was quorate



Voting participants

Participant Roster (2016) - Quorum is 5 of 9 as of 2017-11-20

Iain Henderson, Mary Hodder, Harri Honko, Mark Lizar, Jim Pasquale, John Wunderlich, Andrew Hughes, Rupert Graves, Rachel O'Connell

Discussion Items

TimeItemWhoNotes
4 mins
  • Roll call
  • Agenda bashing
  •  
1 min
  • Organization updates
All

Please review these blogs offline for current status on Kantara and all the DG/WG:

There is a new wiki page that will hold all the known implementations of Consent Receipts - Please update the page or inform Andrew of your implementation.

30 minRecent events updatesAll
    • Kuppinger Cole event in Paris went very well
      • Pre-conference workshop
      • Facebook seems very interested in the transparency aspects
    • Colin is seeking additional speakers for the Singapore event - branch office contacts, etc?
    • Mark talked about the January 29, 2018 international privacy event that is in planning stages

UMA WG joins the callAll
  • Eve outlined the joint agenda
  • CIS WG described current status of the work
    • the v1.1 draft has passed WG ballot and is getting ready for 45-day public review now
    • there are several known implementations
    • David described some of the technical details of the spec
    • there is a loose roadmap going forward
      • Contribution to ISO
      • Forking a 'personal data privacy receipt' concept
      • Further development for specific use cases
  • UMA WG Presented on current status
    • UMA v2.0 is at all-member ballot stage right now
    • In UMA 1 there was 'core' plus 'resource set registration' - but it was a bit of a fragment
    • UMA 2.0 is 2 documents ('Grant' and 'Federated Authorization') - different reorganization of the content from v1
      • UMA (core) is now written an extension grant of OAuth - a thin layer on top of OAuth - easier for OAuth developers to use
      • Fed Authz is now an 'optional module' of UMA v2
      • Read the introductions to learn about what each doc covers
    • UMA extension now allows an asynchronous access policy - defining conditions for a future requesting party to meet. OAuth today is a synchronous access policy - when you go to grant access the user must permit or deny immediately
      • Note that UMA conceives of the Authorization Server to be distinct from the Resource Server. Also the Resource Owner is a different entity from the Requesting Party.
      • Eve describes it as similar to granting access to Google docs
    • UMA github has a 'shoebox' endpoint bunch of issues where 'receipts' and other notifications can be posted
      • What can be proven with an audit trail?
      • The consent receipt is based on research into privacy compliance commonality - notice and consent are the most frequent point of commonality with respect to transparency
        • It captures the notice requirements for consent
  • Note that in the regulations, there is no real concept for person-person data protection
    • But the 'licensing' concept in UMA Legal is the groundbreaking aspect here - it allows for a person-person concept
    • Consentua's platform allows a business to plug in and get data from a person
      • There is a shift in regulation so that the person 'owns' the data, not the business
      • Adoption is driven by commercial need - has to be easy to consume and allow engineers to build the tools for this new orientation
  • Could the UMA AS be a place to 'send' receipts?
    • A 'shoebox API'
  • Andrew starts to talk about role mapping between 'data controller & data processor & data subject' language from CR to 'Resource Owner, Resource Server, Requesting Party, Authorization Server' of UMA
  • Andrew asked if we could look at a use case where the Resource is Personal Data?
    • Eve proposed the Origo use case (pensions data)
  • Andrew posits that when a data subject and data controller agree on a data access or transfer, the data controller should be prepared to issue a consent receipt
    • Eve proposes a 'role state transition matrix'
    • Whenever a data subject and data controller come to agreement, a receipt should be issued
  • Discussion

  •