[KI-LC] [BoT] Round 2 FTC Kantara Input regarding Security and Privacy

Heather Flanagan heather at kantarainitiative.org
Wed May 29 17:35:10 CDT 2013


Excellent discussion, everyone.  I have incorporated many of the changes
and suggestions made by Ken, Sal, and Iain and have a revised document
ready for your review. 

A couple of minor points: 
* the term Smart Technology was left capitalized where found to match
the text in the original FTC query
* some sentences were made shorter for readability
* I do not like commas as much as some folks do, and so several were removed

Iain, I tried to include text to incorporate your ideas below, but a
quick review from you to see if I captured them correctly would be
appreciated.

-Heather

On 5/29/13 2:29 PM, Iain Henderson wrote:
> A few comments from the sidelines, having only just caught up with the thread and this draft.
>
> 1) We really should refer to the Personal Cloud and the Internet of My Things as part of the evolving picture.
>
> 2) The term 'consumers' is a bad one in general, and specifically in this scenario; individuals will generate more data than they consume. About time we moved beyond that 1950's term…
>
> 3) Reference to the importance of user consent might benefit from noting the the current Pavlov's dog/ tick box model is already broken, before we overlay that with thousands of device contact points per individual. Time for a new model, as per the standard information sharing label, and the work being done in NZ.gov (Colin) and Japan.gov (Nat).
>
> 4) To emphasise the above, consider the midata (UK) and Smart Disclosure (USA) scenarios. Much of the current thinking around IoT sees organisations still as the central data collectors. If one then applies midata/ Smart Disclosure logic to that then organisations are spending huge resources to gather data, in order to give it back to the individual (data generator). Better to let the data generator gather the data and share from there.
>
> Hope that helps more than it confuses.
>
> Iain
>
>
> On 29 May 2013, at 20:04, Joni Brennan <joni at ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please find attached draft 2 of the FTC comments where I have attempted to reconcile the use cases and comments shared to date.  
>>
>> Heather would you please start an overall editorial pass on this document noting that there may be a few more comments of substance for inclusion.  
>>
>> Let's set a goal that we conclude revisions on the draft by not later than mid day (PT) tomorrow.  
>>
>> ACTION: Please start reviewing content now if you have not done so already. If there are no objections from LC or BoT by CoB PT on Friday I will send the final draft as a letter from the Executive director with a short forward that indicates comments included were gathered from the Trustees and LC but not necessarily representative of the entire organization. 
>>
>> Thank you for pulling this together in such a short time! 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Joni Brennan <joni at ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>> And Sal I know you have the real world experience in some of this Truck use case model and appreciate all the comments thus far.  Ken, Sal, Ingo, Colin, etc... I'm taking a pass at working all of this in over the next hour.  Then I'll push it back to this group and ask Heather to take an editor pass.  Hopefully this brings us our final "light-touch" comments to FTC. 
>>
>> I am working on a similar statement in another identity and I hope to incorporate similar concepts across both approaches where I am holder of pen for this item.  I hope that this admission is not an issue and, rather, I suspect it can bolster the importance of the issues we are raising as a community.  If there are any concerns please contact me directly. 
>>
>> Next draft in ~ 1 hour.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal at idmachines.com> wrote:
>> So in previous lives “we” made vehicle and part identification systems and have in fact used the quality control and the intelligent transportation experience as a very useful paradigm for security and access control.  Think of a toll booth, electronic ID (leave aside authentication for now), check for valid account, check attributes (vehicle type), flag violation (error report, time stamp), update account and create log among other things (and improve user experience..).  Same thing applies to parts in production and can be extended to process control.  So perhaps a light touch is a way to look at how these do relate.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Dagg, Kenneth
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:49 AM
>> To: 'Ingo.Friese at telekom.de'; 'joni at ieee-isto.org'
>>
>>
>> Cc: 'Smedinghoff at wildman.com'; 'email at colinsoutar.com'; 'LC at kantarainitiative.org'; 'trustees at kantarainitiative.org'; 'anna.slomovic at equifax.com'; 'mark.lizar at gmail.com'
>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] [BoT] Round 2 FTC Kantara Input regarding Security and Privacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Ingo,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would suggest that the use-cases where it appears that access-control (as it currently is known) need to be re-examined with a view to either updating the use-case or access-control.  
>>
>>
>>
>> For the use-case of a truck accessing Hamburg harbor I am not clear why the truck is not able to authenticate. It may not be able to provide a traditional LOA2 username/password but it should be able to provide some sort of equivalent LOA2 token. Or maybe the truck, the driver and the truck-driver association are all validated and access-control is strengthened.
>>
>>
>>
>> The “fake” product scenario is also interesting.  However, it is very similar, at least in my mind, to ensuring that the credential remains under the control of the entity (a part in this case) to which it was issued and that it is not a “fake/counterfeit” credential.  These are challenges that high-level (2 and above) authentication is supposed to address.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is my still my belief (I’m not sure how yet) that a vast majority of these scenarios should be addressable / enhancable by the approaches suggested in Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC). That is not to say that we won’t have to explore new and different directions but rather that we work hard to scope the these to a few exceptions rather than the norm.
>>
>>
>>
>> All this being said, I would endorse the approach that Kantara’s contribution should be a light touch at this time. I would endorse Colin’s suggestion that we use our response to raise some issues/questions and identify some potentially applicable approaches that don’t leave people with the impression that the IoT is a brand new thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> Kenneth Dagg
>> Senior Project Co-ordinator | Coordonnateur de projet supérieur
>> Security and Identity Management | Sécurité et gestion des identités
>> Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information
>> Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada
>> Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
>> Kenneth.Dagg at tbs-sct.gc.ca
>>
>> Telephone | Téléphone 613-957-7041 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-954-6642 / Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-957-9090
>> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>>
>> <image001.gif>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Ingo.Friese at telekom.de [mailto:Ingo.Friese at telekom.de] 
>>
>> Sent: May-29-13 10:27 AM
>> To: joni at ieee-isto.org; Dagg, Kenneth
>> Cc: Smedinghoff at wildman.com; email at colinsoutar.com; LC at kantarainitiative.org; trustees at kantarainitiative.org; anna.slomovic at equifax.com; mark.lizar at gmail.com
>> Subject: RE: [KI-LC] [BoT] Round 2 FTC Kantara Input regarding Security and Privacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Joni,
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for revising the paper. I like it. Joni I agree, this should be (like you said) a n early light touch contribution.
>>
>> Ken , thank you for your comments. Let me try to answer:
>>
>>
>>
>> Frist of all it would be great if we could apply access control as known also to the IoT, because we don’t want to re-invent the wheel.
>>
>> Unfortunately we have many use-cases where the old way won’t work.
>>
>> e.g.: A truck accessing Hamburg harbor is not able to use username/password for authentication. In this case we need generic identifiers and other ways for authentication
>>
>> Another example – faked products or machine parts (companies think they bought a high-tech Siemens rotor – and they get a low cost plagiarism).
>>
>> So how to check and authenticate parts online along their way from production to the customer? I think sometimes we can apply known access control stuff and sometimes we have to go new directions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding your architecture comment : You are right, we should help to develop an IoT architecture at least from an IdM part of view.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joni it’s a good paper (considering the few days we had for preparation). Like Colin said lets integrate, e.g. the architecture remark etc. and that’s it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>                Ingo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Joni Brennan
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 21:35
>> To: Dagg, Kenneth
>> Cc: Smedinghoff, Tom; Colin Soutar; LC at kantarainitiative.org; trustees at kantarainitiative.org; Anna Slomovic/Equifax; Mark Lizar
>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] [BoT] Round 2 FTC Kantara Input regarding Security and Privacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the comments Ken.  I will seek to work them in to a next draft.  The paper is very comprehensive and the original intent of LC was to make an early light touch contribution.  Note that there is likely soon to be an Identity of Things (IDoT) DG in Kantara which would explore the issues in much more detail and then potentially develop some recommendations about how Kantara might provide value in the space etc.  Modeling that you described could very likely be a part of the IDoT DG early approach if not as recommended for a WG to take action on.
>>
>> We continue to welcome comments from others as well. 
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Joni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Dagg, Kenneth <Kenneth.Dagg at tbs-sct.gc.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Joni,
>>
>>
>>
>> I reviewed the document and found some shortcomings. My personal concerns could be mitigated if there are other documents that describe the context of the Internet of Things (IoT). I have used COMMENTS to voice my personal concerns. My apologies, but given the short turnaround time, I regret not being able to recommend how the text could be changed but I just do not have the cycles.
>>
>>
>>
>> It appears to me, with my minimal technical knowledge about the IoT, that the basic concepts of Access Control should apply to the IoT. If this is true, then I would suggest that a lot of the privacy and security implications have been identified. The prime difference, in my personal opinion, with traditional Access Control is the components, like they are in Trust Frameworks and Federations, are decoupled.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also believe that a conceptual architecture of the IoT needs to be developed (if it already exists then I stand corrected). Without this type of understanding, it is my personal opinion that any standards / frameworks / infrastructures that are developed will be tend to be restrictive rather than accommodating. If my belief that Access Control applies then the architecture may essentially be done (could be based on the Attribute Based Access Control – NIST Special Publication 800-162).
>>
>>
>>
>> The conceptual architecture would also include an architecture for “things” that identifies the type of information they contain, its functions (e.g., authentication), etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> Kenneth Dagg
>> Senior Project Co-ordinator | Coordonnateur de projet supérieur
>> Security and Identity Management | Sécurité et gestion des identités
>> Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de l'information
>> Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du Canada
>> Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
>> Kenneth.Dagg at tbs-sct.gc.ca
>>
>> Telephone | Téléphone 613-957-7041 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-954-6642 / Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 613-957-9090
>> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
>>
>> <image001.gif>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: trustees-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:trustees-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Joni Brennan
>> Sent: May-23-13 2:10 PM
>> To: trustees at kantarainitiative.org; LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> Cc: Smedinghoff, Tom; Mark Lizar; Colin Soutar; Anna Slomovic/Equifax
>> Subject: [BoT] Round 2 FTC Kantara Input regarding Security and Privacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thank you Ingo for your first take at the FTC comments [1]!  I have edited them slightly and made some contributions to the document. 
>>
>> Please see attached.  Trustees and LC please advise of suggested inclusions or edits for the document.  I'm hopeful that some of our Privacy based membership will have additional comments. (I've copied a few of you directly but this is an open paper so don't hesitate to add others!)
>>
>> Ideally we need to have the document finalized by May 29 (with no LC objections).  I would then like to submit the document as the Kantara ED and on behalf of the Leadership Council. 
>>
>> Please advise with any further comments or considerations to this activity.  
>>
>> [1] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/04/internetthings.shtm
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Joni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <FTC-KI-Comments-v2.docx>_______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
> Iain Henderson
> iain at thecustomersvoice.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trustees mailing list
> Trustees at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees


-- 
Heather Flanagan
Technical Program Coordinator
Kantara Initiative
Skype: hlflanagan
email: heather at kantarainitiative.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FTC-KI-Comments-v2-HF.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 49551 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20130529/ffe97096/attachment-0001.docx>


More information about the LC mailing list