[WG-P3] I-D - Draft Hansen Privacy Terminology

Mark Lizar 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.

- Mark

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:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-privacy-terminology-01.txt
>>
>> 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 This document seems oddly outdated for the present era.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  
> in
> 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?
>
> Susan
> _______________________________________________
> WG-P3 mailing list
> WG-P3 at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-p3



More information about the WG-P3 mailing list