[WG-P3] I-D - Draft Hansen Privacy Terminology
mark at smartspecies.com
Tue Sep 7 13:02:48 EDT 2010
I agree, this has made me think that the distance between this
language and the one I would use now, is a good example of the scope
of public privacy issues that need to be addressed.
Although I have little in the way of ideas of a good example off the
top of my head I imagine one that includes control and access to
identity as well as the
> crypto world of the 1990
I would like to see your further comments.
On 20 Aug 2010, at 13:44, Susan Landau wrote:
> On 8/12/10 1:08 PM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>> All -
>> On today's P3WG call we discussed that Hannes et al. are beginning to
>> solicit input to their Privacy Terminology I-D:
>> They're also planning to hold a meeting (somewhere in the world
>> TBD) in
>> early December. I'm assuming that they'd like feedback prior to
>> that so
>> a second draft can be worked and distributed in advance.
> This document seems oddly outdated for the present era. The model of
> computation presented is a sender, receiver, and an adversary who
> observes something about their communications. Those are the only
> players being included. However, we're no longer living in the closed
> crypto world of the 1990s (the date for most of the references), but
> a world of Facebook, Google, and ubiquitous networked information.
> There are no assumptions being made here about the strength of the
> adversary and/or the knowledge available via other sources.
> Before I comment further, any thoughts on this point?
> WG-P3 mailing list
> WG-P3 at kantarainitiative.org
More information about the WG-P3