Status of Minutes
Approved at: 2019-12-12 Meeting notes (CR) DRAFT
- Chris Cooper
- David Turner
- Robert Lapes
- Colin Wallis
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
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 min||Recent events updates||All|
- 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 call||All|
- 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?
- 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