[Wg-p3] privacy commons

Paul Madsen paulmadsen at rogers.com
Fri Oct 16 09:56:57 EDT 2009


I'll remind folks of the Liberty IGF Privacy constraints work.

http://www.projectliberty.org/liberty/content/download/4323/28921/file/draft-liberty-igf-privacy-constraints-v1.0-04.pdf

Paul

Iain Henderson wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-p3 mailing list
> Wg-p3 at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/wg-p3/attachments/20091016/2317d4a2/attachment.html 


More information about the Wg-p3 mailing list