[Wg-p3] privacy commons

Iain Henderson iain.henderson at mydex.org
Fri Oct 16 05:13:34 EDT 2009


I'm pretty sure that Mary's work included the machine readable  
dimension, but it is all public domain and last I spoke to her she was  
happy for people to pick it up and run with it. That said, i'd be  
amazed if Microsoft were not looking to build something like that into  
the eventual Credentica powered information card and selector.

The way I personally see this space is:

- current modus operandi around privacy policies....utterly broken and  
not fixable from within an organisation or solely from an  
organisational perspective (too many entrenched positions and strong  
motivating factors to retain the status quo, and indeed make it worse)

- legislation/ policy won't help fix that for years, and when it does  
the problem will have changed anyway

- grass roots initiatives like Project VRM, Privacy Commons etc will  
offer a platform for a way forward, but can't get there on their own

- there needs to be a place where grass roots approaches and  
organisation-centric approaches can converge, and not just around  
technology

- that place could be Wg-P3 if we have the time/ money/ appetite to  
step up to that

In terms of the actual lack of progress to date you refer to, my own  
view is that is because the various initiatives have been too small  
(under-resourced/ too dis-connected, too localised, not broad enough  
in their team skills) versus the scale of the task. I think that is  
fixable.

And we also have the research scoping work to help point us in the  
right direction.

Let's discuss - when are you next up in London?

Cheers

Iain




On 15 Oct 2009, at 22:09, Robin Wilton wrote:

> I think the machine-readbility factor is a valid one, which also  
> potentially differentiates this from Mary Rundle's prior art (I may  
> be wrong, but I think her focus only went as far as human-readable  
> Ts&Cs).
>
> Either way, I think it could be that we're just looking at this the  
> wrong way round. The fact that, despite a couple of expressions of  
> intent, there isn't an implementation in the market yet might lead  
> us to conclude that it's not worth doing - because no-one's built a  
> compelling business case for doing it. However, I think I'm coming  
> round to the view that it may simply be a (relatively minor) barrier  
> to adoption, which it's worth spending a little effort to remove.
>
> R
>
> Iain Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Trent, i've responded (e-mails crossing somewhere over the
>> Atlantic) saying I think it is complementary with the Information
>> Sharing work group activity. When  machine readable agreements are in
>> place from both organisation and individual perspectives then
>> negotiating to the right deal for both parties will become vastly
>> easier.
>>
>> I'm on the DataPortability task force but not heard much for a bit -
>> i'll check in and see where they are at.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Iain
>>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:12, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Susan -
>>>
>>> I agree it's worth exploring.  I don't think Aaron said, though,  
>>> there
>>> was more information behind a login barrier, just that you'd need an
>>> account to add or edit content.  I think that what you see is what
>>> they've produced so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>> From reading what's available, I would be interested in knowing if/
>>>> how
>>>>
>>> their work dovetails with the similar work proposed by the  
>>> InfoSharing
>>> WG as well as the DataPortability TOS/EULA Task Force.
>>>
>>> This is an interesting area, and there seems to be enough movement
>>> in it
>>> to warrant continued investigation.
>>>
>>> - Trent
>>>
>>>
>>> Susan Landau wrote:
>>>
>>>> In principle, I think the idea of endorsing the privacy commons  
>>>> seems
>>>> quite reasonable for us to be doing.  However, in practice, it  
>>>> seems
>>>> there is not a huge amount up on the web site.  I Aaron said  
>>>> there is
>>>> more in the password-protected area, but FTC is unlikely to go
>>>> looking
>>>> there (as are other people).
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that others take a look before our next call.  I like
>>>> Aaron's
>>>> approach, but so far there is only an approach, and not much else.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wg-p3 mailing list
>>>> Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> J. Trent Adams
>>> =jtrentadams
>>>
>>> Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/
>>> LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wg-p3 mailing list
>>> Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3
>>>
>>
>> Iain Henderson
>> iain.henderson at mydex.org
>>
>> This email and any attachment contains information which is private
>> and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are
>> not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-
>> mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>> please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wg-p3 mailing list
>> Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3
>>
> <futureidentity.vcf>

Iain Henderson
iain.henderson at mydex.org

This email and any attachment contains information which is private  
and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are  
not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e- 
mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error,  
please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.






More information about the Wg-p3 mailing list